U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–223PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–818 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND DRINKING WATER ISSUES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 2, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arizona 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 2, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ....................... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .............. 7 

Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ........................ 8 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ......... 9 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming ........................ 11 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ............................... 13 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ........................ 13 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ........................... 13 

WITNESSES 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency .............. 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 19 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 26 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 42 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 45 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 47 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 48 

EPA, Emergency Administrative Orders: 

Region 6, Final Peer Review, Range Resources Corporation 

and Range Production Company ............................................ 49 

Region 8, Draft IRIS Toxicological Review, Murphy Exploration & Production Co., Pioneer Natural Resources USA, 

Inc., and Samson Hydrocarbons Co. ...................................... 60 

Birnbaum, Linda, D.A.B.T., A.T.S., director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program .............................. 103 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

Cook, Kenneth A., president, Environmental Working Group ............................ 126 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 127 

Study, Chromium-6 in U.S. Tap Water .......................................................... 133 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 156 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 157 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 157 

VanDe Hei, Diane, executive director, Association of Metropolitan Water 

Agencies ................................................................................................................ 158 

Prepared statement of Carrie Lewis ............................................................... 159 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 163 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 164 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 167 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 167 

Murray, Charles, general manager, Fairfax Water .............................................. 168 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 170 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 172 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 174 
Page

IV 

Burke, Thomas A, Ph.D., MPH, professor and associate dean for Public 

Health Practice, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Director of the Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute ............... 174 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 176 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement, Lewis, Steve, city manager, City of Norman, OK ............................. 187 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 188 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 188 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 190 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 190 
(1) 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND DRINKING WATER 

ISSUES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Cardin, 

Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, Barrasso, Johanns, and Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. The Committee will 

come to order. 

We have called this hearing today to focus on a public health 

issue that touches every family in every community across the 

country: the quality of our Nation’s drinking water. Congress 

passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 to protect public 

health by creating consistent and strong safeguards for the Nation’s public drinking water supply. 

The words that President Ford spoke when he signed this legislation into law are as true today as they were then, so I am going 

to quote him. He said, ‘‘Nothing is more essential to the life of 

every single American than clean air, pure food and safe drinking 

water.’’ He went on to say, there have been strong national programs to improve the quality of our air and the purity of our food. 

This bill, meaning the Water Bill, will provide us with the protection we need for drinking water. 

So President Ford, I believe, had it right. I think we need to live 

up to the spirit of this law and the letter of this law. 

Congress last amended significant portions of the Act in 1996, 

strengthening public health protections and expanding the public’s 

right to know about the quality of the water that they drink. The 

House passed these amendments 392 to 30; the Senate passed 

them unanimously. 

Both of the distinguished witnesses on our first panel, Administrator Jackson and Director Birnbaum, are leading efforts to use 

the best available science to protect the public health. Administrator Jackson, EPA’s very mission, as you know, is to protect 

human health and the environment. You have told us that many 

times. A core principle of your agency is ‘‘to ensure that national 
2 

efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information.’’ That is what you have told us. 

As I said last week when I participated at a town hall at EPA 

headquarters, the mission that you undertake every day, Administrator Jackson, is critically important to children and to families, 

the elderly in communities large and small all across our great 

country. Your mission matters. It is a mission created with bipartisan support and one that has made huge strides to improve our 

families’ and our Nation’s health. 

The EPA is also charged with making the final decision on 

whether to develop safeguards for new threats to drinking water, 

such as chromium VI and perchlorate. We would like to applaud 

your announcement today, Administrator Jackson, that the EPA 

will move forward to establish a national drinking water standard 

for perchlorate. Perchlorate is a toxic chemical contained in rocket 

fuel. It does not belong in our drinking water. Yet, according to the 

Government Accountability Office, EPA data show that perchlorate 

has been found in 35 States and the District of Columbia, and is 

known to have contaminated 153 public water systems in 26 

States. 

The Bush administration never did set a drinking water standard for perchlorate, leaving millions of Americans in dozens of 

states at risk. But after reviewing the science, you reversed that 

decision, and I applaud you for that. I look forward to the agency 

moving quickly to put in place a strong national standard to protect public drinking water from this dangerous contaminant. 

Chromium VI is another drinking water contaminant that I have 

urged the Federal Government to address. Chromium is used to 

make steel, metal plating and other materials. We all know the 

story of Erin Brockovich, who worked to help the people in 

Hinkley, California, who were drinking water contaminated by 

chromium VI. In 2008, the National Toxicology Program concluded 

that chromium VI in drinking water shows ‘‘clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in laboratory animal tests.’’ 

In 2009, my home State of California proposed a public health 

goal for chromium VI of 0.06 parts per billion. One year later, in 

2010, my State strengthened its proposal to .02 parts per billion, 

based on the need to protect infants and children from dangercausing substances. We all know that infants, children and pregnant women are far more vulnerable to these toxins. 

In September 2010, EPA released a draft scientific assessment 

that found chromium VI in drinking water is ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’’ The agency had said it expects to finish this assessment in 2011. 

The non-profit Environmental Working Group released a report 

that provided us with a snapshot in time on chromium VI levels 

in some drinking water systems. They found chromium VI in the 

drinking water in 31 cities across our country. I believe the Federal 

Government must act quickly to develop needed safeguards to reduce the threats in our Nation’s drinking water. I look forward to 

hearing about the work that EPA is engaged in to address chromium VI and other emerging contaminants. 

I do want to welcome our new members, Senator Johanns. We 

welcome you, sir, we are delighted you are with us. Also Senator 
3 

Sessions and Senator Boozman are also new members. I want to 

welcome them, even though they are not here. They will be strongly welcomed by all of us. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for taking time 

to continue our discussions on the Federal drinking water program. 

I know that everyone in this room agrees that we all need safe, 

clean, drinking water. 

To carry out this priority effectively, we need resources, but we 

also need sound policy based on the best available science. Madam 

Chairman, I counted in your opening statement, you said the same 

thing three times, best available science. I feel confident that the 

recent drinking water report by the Environmental Working Group, 

which we are working on today, does not fall into that category. 

Simply put, the report is biased, and therefore the conclusions are 

skewed to fit a particular viewpoint, or I should say agenda, perhaps. 

What is more, the Environmental Working Group has rejected 

transparency, one of the fundamental practices of good science. 

When the city officials from Norman, OK requested the Environmental Working Group’s testing methodology, they said no. Without transparency, without the ability of other scientists to replicate 

your work, you can’t have good science. 

Due to the snowstorm in Oklahoma, Steven Lewis, who was 

going to be one of our witnesses, and I appreciate your allowing 

him to come, however, he can’t come, because he can’t get here. He 

was unable to travel here. His testimony can help us put some context around the Environmental Working Group’s flawed findings 

and help us understand the robust public health protections Norman has in place. That is Norman, OK. 

He has agreed to answer the followup questions that the Committee might have, and I would respectfully request, of course, that 

his testimony be part of the record. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows on page 187.] 

Senator INHOFE. I also welcome the testimony of Charles Murray, city manager for Water from the city of Fairfax. Some of these 

guys are going to have to do double duty, since my witness couldn’t 

show up today. Mr. Murray will no doubt provide some practical 

insights into how local water systems are dealing with chromium 

VI and other drinking water mandates. 

I also want to make a special note and welcome the Administrator, Lisa Jackson. Administrator, it is good to see you, as always. I want to thank you for your willingness last year to work 

with me specifically and my staff on some of the real difficult 

issues. I also want to thank you for your help on passing several 

key pieces of legislation that were drafted in this Committee. With 

your help, we passed a bill to reduce lead in drinking water and 

a bill to provide grants to States to reduce diesel emissions. 
4 

I want you to know that I sent a spy into your office and they 

tell me that the picture of my 20 kids and grandkids are still there. 

So I appreciate that, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. As we look at the next 2 years, obviously there 

are many contentious issues ahead, many issues where we have 

fundamental disagreements. They include, and we have talked 

about, among the Republicans on this side of the aisle, and particularly the three new ones we are welcoming to this Committee. That 

is, regulating the greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This 

is something that Congressman Upton and I have a joint—we were 

going to announce this today and apparently it got out last night 

instead, so we will be talking about that. The boiler MACT, the 

utility MACT, PM dust, that is regulating dust on farms. Those of 

us in western States understand that if you have cotton and you 

have dirt and you have wind, you are going to have dust. We need 

to talk about that. The ozone changes that are recommended. Then 

hydraulic fracturing, I may have some questions today on that. 

So we disagree on this issues, yet we have in the past and let’s 

keep an open line of communication. Administrator Jackson, I am 

sure we will, because there could be areas where we can reach 

agreement as we did before. The lead bill and the diesel bill are 

just two examples of what we can do. So I wish you all the best 

as we head into the new Congress. 

Now, let me welcome our three new members. Senator Sessions 

is not here. He was on the Committee some time ago, then dropped 

off, and he is back now. Senator Boozman will be here. He has 

been a very good friend of mine for many years, from Arkansas. 

Senator Johanns will have a lot to offer. Having been the Secretary 

of Agriculture, he brings an abundance of knowledge to this Committee. So we welcome our new members here, and thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for taking the time today to continue our discussions about Federal drinking water programs. I know that everyone in this room 

agrees that clean, safe, affordable drinking water is essential, and should be a national priority. 

To carry out this priority effectively, we need resources, but we also need sound 

policy, based on the best available science. I feel confident that the recent drinking 

water report by the Environmental Working Group, which we are focusing on today, 

does not fall in that category. 

Put simply, the report is biased, and therefore the conclusions are skewed to fit 

a particular view point. What’s more, the EWG has rejected transparency, one of 

the fundamental practices of good science. When city officials from Norman, Oklahoma requested EWG’s testing methodology, EWG said no. Without transparency— 

without the ability of other scientists to replicate your work—you can’t have good 

science. 

We’ve seen this scenario before. An activist group publishes a study—in this case, 

on chromium-6—making a dramatic finding about some kind of harm to the environment or public health. Rarely, however, are the findings of such studies carefully 

scrutinized or rigorously analyzed in the media. 

EPA already regulates chromium in all its valance forms, 0, 3 and 6, together in 

its total chromium MCL–G and MCL. While chromium-3 is an essential nutrient 

that we need to properly metabolize glucose, protein and fat, chromium-0 and chromium-6 are of concern to public health. As recently as March 2010, EPA had deter-
5 

1 ‘‘Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water Causes Cancer in Lab Animals,’’ NIH Press Release May 16, 2007, http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2007/niehs–16.htm 2 ‘‘Fewer cancers found in Hinkley than expected,’’ Louis Sahagun, LA Times, December 13, 

2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hinkley-cancer–20101213,0,7881571.story 3 Chromium-6—the Erin Brockovich Chemical—Is Widespread in U.S. Tap Water, Environmental Working Group, December 20, 2010 http://static.ewg.org/reports/2010/chrome6/html/ 

home.html 

mined that the 100 ppb MCL for chromium is still protective of human health, 

based on the science available, but that they were examining the new science. 

The new science that EPA is currently examining is from a 2007 National Toxicology Program study showing the potential carcinogenic properties of chromium-6. 

In the press release on the study’s findings, the NTP noted that: 

‘‘rats and mice were given four different doses of [chromium-6] in their drinking 

water ranging from 14.3 milligrams/liter to 516 milligrams/liter for 2 years. The 

lowest doses given to the animals in the study were ten times higher than what 

humans could consume from the most highly contaminated water sources identified 

in California.’’1

As a result of this study, EPA is proposing to classify chromium-6 as ‘‘likely to 

be carcinogenic’’ to humans via ingestion. As of now, EPA plans to make a final determination about the carcinogenicity of chromium-6 in 2011. The agency has a lot 

of intensive scientific work to do. I would encourage EPA to ensure that it considers 

all of the best available science when making its final decision and not rush to conclusions. 

Additionally, EPA needs to do a better job of communicating to the public the 

process they are going through. Good science sometimes seems frustratingly slow. 

However, when we are making decisions about how to spend limited resources and 

ensure we’re focusing on the contaminants of highest public health concern, we have 

an obligation to get it right the first time. 

Unfortunately, none of this helps Norman, or the 30 other communities singled 

out by the EWG. The residents are surely confused about the EWG’s study. At first 

glance, the findings seem ominous, but upon closer inspection, one can see how the 

study, particularly how it was couched, is mainly hype. 

Let’s take Norman as an example. The EWG found that Norman’s tap water had 

a 12.5 ppb concentration of chromium-6. Of course that concentration is significantly 

lower than the 100 ppb drinking water standard set by EPA. What’s more, it’s almost meaningless when compared to the 14,300–516,000 ppb concentration that 

caused cancer in rats in the NTP study. 

So what was EWG’s reference point? EWG compared its samples to the draft California health goal of 0.06 ppb, which they argued was too high. California public 

health goals are not regulatory, but instead set to a standard under which no adverse health effects occur over a lifetime, or a one in a million chance of this contaminant contributing to cancer. Additionally, around the same time as this report 

the California Cancer Registry survey for Hinkley, CA, where the now famous Erin 

Brockovich case was settled, found that Hinkley did not have any statistical increase in cancer during the time when people drank water that exceeded 550 ppb.2

Furthermore, this was no random sample of 35 cities. EWG says in their report 

that, ‘‘Over the years, nearly all of the 35 cities tested by EWG regularly report 

finding chromium (in the form of total chromium) in their water despite using far 

less sensitive testing methods than those used by EWG.’’3

This is one of many oddities in the EWG study. 

A basic tenet of good science is transparency—that is, sharing your data and assumptions so other scientists can replicate your work. In this case, the EWG has 

taken the opposite course. City officials in Norman pressed EWG for basic information on its study, such as where and when EWG sampled water. Thus far, EWG 

refused to answer, indicating to me at least that EWG either lacks confidence in 

its methods and conclusions or did not intend this report to be more than a scare 

tactic. Otherwise, what is EWG trying to hide? 

It is clear that the EWG report was released to influence both California and EPA 

to take some action on chromium-6, which both have. California announced it was 

lowering its public health goal and EPA put out guidance for drinking water systems on how to test for chromium-6, though they gave no indication of how to report 

the potential health effects to consumers. 

I hope that we can have rational discussions about how to properly regulate contaminants in drinking water. In this case, as in others, political tracts disguised as 

scientific studies are taken as fact, and the consequence is usually more regulation. 

That in turn can mean high costs for little or no benefit for local communities. 
6 

In 1996, Congress successfully amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, and set up 

a system to ensure that we regulate substances in drinking water in a scientifically 

sound way. EPA is required to set standards if contaminants ‘‘have known health 

effects,’’ and are ‘‘known to occur in public water systems with a frequency and at 

levels of public health concern,’’ not simply because they catch media attention. 

This committee has had success in dealing with drinking water issues in the past. 

In fact, just last Congress, Madam Chairman, you and I were able to co-sponsor and 

pass legislation clarifying the definition of ‘‘lead free’’ as it relates to drinking 

water—lowering the statutorily allowable limit from 8 percent to 0.25 percent. 

I would also like to take the opportunity to remind the Committee that we need 

to improve our nation’s drinking water facilities by reauthorizing the State Revolving Loan Fund programs, both for drinking water and waste water. We cannot expect our communities to continue to provide safe drinking water if they do not have 

the resources to meet their infrastructure needs. This committee has the responsibility to ensure clean, safe, and affordable water for our country by providing the 

necessary resources to our states and local governments. 

EPA estimates that over the next 20 years, eligible drinking water systems will 

need over $300 billion in infrastructure investments, and that is not taking into account treatment costs for any of the chemicals we are discussing being added. I look 

forward to working with you and the Chair and Ranking Members of the Water 

Subcommittee on our next bill. 

Due to the severe snow fall in Oklahoma, Steven Lewis, the City Manager from 

Norman was unable to travel to be with us today. Mr. Lewis’s testimony can help 

put some context around the EWG’s findings, and help us understand the robust 

public health protections Norman has in place. He has agreed to answer any followup questions that the committee may have. I would respectfully request that Mr. 

Lewis’s testimony be included for the record. I also welcome the testimony of 

Charles Murray, General Manager for water for Fairfax County, across the river in 

Virginia. Mr. Murray will no doubt provide some practical insights into how a local 

water system is dealing with chromium-6 and other drinking water mandates. 

I also want to make special note to welcome EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Administrator, it’s good to see you. I want to thank you for your willingness last year 

to work with me and my staff on some very difficult issues. I also want to thank 

you for your help in passing several key pieces of legislation that were drafted in 

this committee. With your help, we passed a bill to reduce lead in drinking water 

and a bill to provide grants to states to reduce diesel emissions. 

As we look to the next 2 years, obviously there are many contentious issues 

ahead—many issues where we have fundamental disagreements. They include: 

• Regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act; 

• The Boiler MACT; 

• The Utility MACT; 

• PM Dust; 

• Ozone; and 

• Hydraulic Fracturing 

Yes, we disagree on these issues. Yet, as we have in the past, let’s keep an open 

line of communication, because there could be areas where we can reach agreement. 

The lead bill and the diesel bill are just two examples of what can happen if we 

do that. 

So Administrator Jackson, I wish you all the best as we head into a new Congress. Thank you for coming today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to our new Republican members to 

our Committee this Congress. Welcome Senator Sessions, Senator Johanns and Senator Boozman. We are happy to have you on our committee and look forward to 

working with you this Congress. And a welcome back to all our returning committee 

members, Republican and Democrat. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for holding this important hearing, and I 

look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. Senator. 

I just want to go through the order of arrival on our side. It is 

Boxer, Cardin, Lautenberg, Merkley, Udall. On the Republican 

side, Inhofe, Johanns and Barrasso. 

So we will now go to Senator Cardin. 
7 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

calling this hearing on this extremely important subject. Welcome, 

Administrator Jackson and Dr. Birnbaum, to our Committee. We 

look forward to your continuing to work with us to make sure that 

all people in this country have clean and safe water. 

I think for many years in the wake of seminal laws like the 

Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, many of us took 

for granted that our water would be safe. But when you hear the 

stories and accounts now that we are finding chromium VI in our 

water supplies, it raises serious questions as to whether we are 

doing everything we need to make sure our water supplies are safe. 

I add to that the fact that my constituents of Prince Georges County had to boil water because of water main breaks. That also raises 

questions as to the availability of clean, safe water to the people 

of this Nation. 

That is why I am so glad we have the Environmental Protection 

Agency, whose job it is under the Safe Drinking Water Act to study 

chemicals and compounds in our drinking water and decide what 

is safe and what isn’t, and set standards for treatment that protect 

that health. It is a job that agency did today when it reversed the 

Bush-era decision and announced that it will set standards for perchlorate, a chemical that we know impairs brain development in 

fetuses and young children. I congratulate the EPA for doing that, 

Administrator Jackson. 

I feel better, and I think my constituents feel better, knowing 

that we can turn to Administrator Jackson, a fierce protector of 

public health and the environment, and ask, what does it mean 

when the Environmental Working Group found that chromium-6 is 

in tap water in Bethesda, MD, and what should we do about it. We 

know that not only is it her job to tell us, but she has, and her staff 

has, the scientific knowledge and skills to give us the answers or 

will work to find the answers to those issues. 

But for 400,000 Marylanders and those in Prince Georges County 

that spent much of last week boiling their water, know that it is 

not just getting the dangerous chemicals, that is not enough to 

make the water supply safe. For high quality water, we need high 

quality water infrastructure. 

On Monday of last week, a major water main break in Prince 

Georges County not only destroyed cars and caused serious damage 

to a local business park, it shut down a portion of the Capital Beltway, it disrupted regular work of the Census Bureau headquarters 

and Andrews Air Force Base, it shut down local businesses and 

schools and required 400,000 residents to boil their water to ensure 

its safety. That task I am sure was made much more difficult during the snow storm when power was cutoff to many of those residents. 

We had another dramatic break in Maryland in recent years 

when we saw River Road in Bethesda turn literally into a river, requiring motorists to be rescued by helicopters and boats. In October 

2009, a thousand basements in Dundalk, MD, were underwater. In 

March 2010, thousands more homes and businesses along major 

thoroughfares in Baltimore County were left without water. 
8 

Madam Chair, this story could be told in just about every community in our country. The major water main breaks that have become near epidemic in our region and elsewhere tell us that major 

parts of the system are too old and too frail to hold together too 

much longer. The breaks are more than an inconvenience, they can 

endanger the health and safety of our citizens, as well as disrupt 

economic activity and our national security. 

That is one of the reasons why our water infrastructure has been 

given a rating of D minus by our national engineers. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than $340 billion 

will be needed over the next 20 years to meet the Nation’s drinking 

water infrastructure needs. 

For these reasons, I have asked the President to include water 

in his 6-year plan for infrastructure investment. While water mains 

are less visible than roads and bridges, they are just as important 

to our economy and in equally desperate need of repair. That is 

why as Chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, I will 

have no higher priority than reauthorization the Water Infrastructure Financing Act. I look forward to working with Administrator 

Jackson, Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe and the members of our 

Committee to report out again, I hope, a Water Infrastructure Financing Act, and hopefully to get it enacted. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank you once again for holding this hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Boozman, we welcomed you, both sides, and we are very 

happy to see you here today. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. So, Senator Johanns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

As you pointed out, this is my first meeting, so it is kind of my 

maiden voyage on this Committee. I won’t speak long. 

I just wanted to offer a thought or two if I could to maybe frame 

how I am thinking about this and what I will be interested in as 

you testify and we ask questions. In another life, some years ago, 

I had the privilege to serve the city of Lincoln as their mayor for 

two terms. The city of Lincoln, NE, has a strong mayor form of government, so the mayor is not only the mayor in terms of the ceremonial duties, but is also the city manager, a separate city manager is not hired. 

During that period of time, under my jurisdiction was the Lincoln water system, which today does an excellent job, did an excellent job then. I think it one of the most forward-leaning, forwardlooking water systems really in the country. 

The perspective I would offer is this. There is nobody out there 

employed by any water system that wants to provide a dangerous 

product to their customers. Their customers rely upon that source 

of water, they want to know that it is safe to drink, not only for 

them but for their children and their babies. 

The thing that we were always struggling with, though, is how 

do deal with the requirements in a way that not only provided that 
9 

safety but allowed us to be able to go to customers and say, this 

additional expenditure of money that we are going to do is justified 

by good science and a thoughtful approach. Typically that would 

come from the Federal Government. That is important. We have to 

make the case. It is one thing for us to sit here in Washington and 

issue rules and regulations, which I have done also as a former 

Secretary of Agriculture. It is quite another thing for the people on 

the ground delivering the service to make the case to that customer 

clientele that in fact this is the right course of action and it is justified. 

So when I press on issues like this, and hopefully ask good, 

thoughtful, tough questions, it is because somewhere out there, 

someone is trying to make the case that the requirements are in 

fact justified. 

Final thing I am going to mention, it is interesting how quickly 

word spreads of new committee assignments, because I already got 

a letter from one of our water systems in Nebraska, I will make 

that a part of the record at the appropriate time, raising these 

same basic issues. Just making the case that, look, we want to provide a safe product, we also want to assure our clientele that the 

investment that we will be making is justified under the science 

that is available. 

Madam Chair, I thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I welcome 

our distinguished testifiers here, Lisa Jackson and Dr. Birnbaum. 

They come with a lot of experience and a lot of concerns about 

what we might be able to do to protect our health and well-being 

better. 

Clean, safe drinking water is essential in our health and especially for the well-being of our children. Under the Safe Drinking 

Water, we have made big strides in cleaning our country’s water 

supply. But too many people are still drinking water that is contaminated with dangerous pollutants. Too often, public water supplies are found to be in violation of EPA standards. But the public 

health is at risk, even when water doesn’t violate the law, because 

EPA has either failed to set limits on pollution at law, but much 

of that is because of restrictions that prevent them from doing so, 

or because the limits are too weak. 

Since 2004, more than 62 million Americans have been exposed 

to drinking water that meets EPA standards but actually contains 

potentially harmful contaminants, including some that are toxic. In 

fact, research shows that there are more than 140 chemicals in our 

drinking water that EPA does not regulate. In some parts of our 

country, these chemicals include gasoline additives and pesticides. 

In other States, drinking water contains the so-called fracking 

chemicals, which are used to produce natural gas. In some communities near drilling rigs, you can turn on the tap and literally light 

the water. 
10 

As if that isn’t disturbing enough, last year, chromium VI, a carcinogen linked to leukemia, stomach cancer and other cancers, was 

found in the water supplies of 31 America cities. These cities include some of the Nation’s largest, like New York, Los Angeles, 

Boston, Phoenix and Washington, DC. Chromium pollution is also 

a major problem in our State of New Jersey. So this is an issue 

that hits close to home for me, as well as EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson, who previously led the State’s Department of Environmental Protection. We miss you there, but we would rather see you 

here. The reach for the health and well-being of kids is much better 

with your post here. 

Make no mistake, when Administrator Jackson arrived at EPA, 

she had plenty of work cut out for her. Under President Bush, the 

EPA was required on several occasions to consider setting limits on 

contaminants found in drinking water. But each and every time 

that EPA was given an opportunity to improve water safety during 

those years, the agency sat on its hands and decided not to regulate. Fortunately, under Administrator Jackson’s leadership, the 

EPA is moving in the right direction, and working on the public’s 

behalf. 

As we are going to hear today, Ms. Jackson is taking steps to set 

new limits on chemicals in our drinking water and doing more to 

determine the impact of natural gas drilling on our country’s water 

supply. Administrator Jackson is making good use of the tools she 

has under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but the bill itself limits 

the EPA’s ability to protect the public’s right to know. 

Now, 25 years ago, I authored the Right to Know Law on toxic 

chemical releases, to make sure that people knew about potentially 

hazardous substances in their communities. The public also has a 

right to know what’s in their water. That is why I will soon introduce the Drinking Water Right to Know Act. The Safe Drinking 

Water only allows EPA to require temporary monitoring of small 

groups of unregulated contaminants. So the public has no idea that 

they might be drinking water laden with unregulated contaminants 

like chromium VI and gasoline additives and other toxins. 

My bill would fix this problem by allowing EPA to require a targeted increase in monitoring for unregulated pollutants that could 

be hazardous. In addition, my bill would require EPA to make information on contaminants in drinking water more readily available online and in simple English. More information on contaminants will empower citizens and help Government to make better 

decisions on pollutants in the water supply. 

So I look forward, Madam Chairman, to hearing from our witnesses about how we can all work together to meet this challenge. 

My friend and colleague mentioned his grandchildren, and the 

beauty of the grandchildren. Their beauty will be considerably enhanced for your grandchildren and my grandchildren. Smiles will 

get better if the water isn’t attacking their well-being. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Barrasso. 
11 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to add to the comments from Senator Johanns, and 

I would also like to thank the witnesses for testifying today on such 

an important matter. 

Madam Chairman, there has been an onslaught of job-crushing 

regulations emerging from the Environmental Protection Agency 

over the last 2 years. Employment in this country is 9.4 percent. 

Regulations coming out of the EPA are devastating to the American economy. 

Despite the fact that the American people rejected cap and trade, 

the EPA continues to press forward. Charles Krauthammer wrote 

in the Washington Post an editorial entitled ‘‘Who Makes the Laws, 

Anyway?’’ In it he says, ‘‘Administrators administer the law, they 

don’t change it. That’s the legislators’ job.’’ 

I don’t see that the Environmental Protection Agency has learned 

that constitutional lesson. The EPA has continued to move forward 

with job-crushing Clean Air Act regulations for greenhouse gases. 

Washington Times reporter Richard Rahn stated in a piece entitled 

‘‘Obama’s Regulatory Reform Test’’ that ‘‘Well-qualified independent economists have estimated this will cost the United States 

in lost foreign investment roughly $100 billion a year and many 

thousands, thousands of jobs.’’ He bluntly stated the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate policies amounted to ‘‘national 

economic suicide.’’ 

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out on January 24th, despite 

the President’s executive order to have the EPA do a simple cost 

estimate of its regulations, the EPA issued a statement saying that 

it was ‘‘confident’’ that it wouldn’t need to change a single rule. Respectfully, Madam Administrator, that sounds arrogant. 

I will tell you the Environmental Protection Agency went further 

and stated that its rules consistently yield billions in cost savings 

that make them among the cost-effective in the Government. 

The most recent example of EPA abuse fits well within today’s 

hearing’s subject matter. It is the EPA’s abuse of power to use the 

Clean Water Act to consider climate change in approving TMDLs, 

or the total maximum daily loads for communities. A TMDL is a 

plan to reduce overall loading of a particular substance to a body 

of water. The economic impact of an overly restrictive TMDL can 

be devastating to communities. It would stop expansion of a sewer 

system to put in a new housing development or a small business 

or a factory. It could increased the sewer rates on existing customers, which could limit any new land use activity that could impact the loading. This includes activities such as forestry and farming. 

Now the EPA wants to consider the potential, potential effects of 

climate change on water bodies. No one can predict what the effect 

would be of a changing climate on a body of water years into the 

future. Not even the oracles at the Environmental Protection Agency can do that. In fact, in the EPA’s most recent and rigorous review of the impacts of climate change on water, it mentions the 

‘‘uncertainty,’’ the uncertainty of climate change effects, 47 times in 

the 72 pages report. Yet the EPA wants to potential open up all 
12 

43,658 approved TMDLs across all 50 States and territories and 

now, factor in climate change. This would eliminate any certainty 

in existing and future investment in new factories and small business across the country. 

The only thing that is certain is Congress didn’t approve this 

sweeping, job-crushing idea. Anti-job activists did, and they did it 

behind closed doors at the Environmental Protection Agency. 

We need to send a message to the EPA that the days of legislating without Congress are over. The consent of the governed is 

re-established. That is why I have introduced Senate Bill 228, the 

Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act. I have done 

it with 10 of my fellow Senators. This bill establishes that Congress 

shall set the Nation’s energy and climate and policy, and eliminate 

these job-crushing regulations. 

I thank the Chairman and look forward to the testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

As chair of this Committee, I want to put in the record with 

unanimous consent the Supreme Court decision that said the following: ‘‘Because greenhouses gases fit well within the Clean Air 

Act’s definition of air pollutant, we hold that EPA has the statutory 

authority to regulate the emission of such gases.’’ 

This is a hearing about clean water. Senator, you had every right 

to say whatever you want. But it is not consistent with the topic 

before us. 

But I wanted to put this into the record, because I thought you 

might go in this direction. I think it is important to note that if 

the EPA failed to regulate carbon pollution, they would be going 

against the Clean Air Act and against the Supreme Court decision. 

We are a country of laws, not people, no matter how strongly we 

feel. I think those people who want to repeal the Clean Air Act, 

should go ahead and do it. You want to repeal it, you have every 

right. 

But the fact is, to attack an agency that is carrying out the law 

is totally inappropriate. That is just how I feel about it. 

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe, you can have a minute to respond. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me respond. It is my understanding of 

the Court that they gave the authority to the EPA to do that but 

not a mandate to do it. So that discretion was made by the EPA. 

I think that needs to be part of this UC. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, just a moment. We could go back and forth. 

The EPA had the responsibility to make an endangerment finding. 

That was under the law. If they found via the science that there 

is a danger to the people from carbon pollution, they had to pass 

this finding, which they did. 

But I am really going to cut this off now, because we really will 

have lots of opportunity as we look at your law and the kinds of 

things we want to do on our side. But we are just going to move 

forward. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me just respond to the comment on the 

endangerment finding. 

Senator BOXER. Well, this could go on all day. 
13 

Senator INHOFE. I know—— 

Senator BOXER. Who has the last word? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, if we are going to go on, I want to 

go on also. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman, I will address my part during my questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. If everyone can address their part 

during the question time. I think we see the divide here very clearly. It is healthy, it is not unhealthy that we have this divide. It is 

the fact. We will deal with it. We all want a Highway Bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But we also, I think, all want clean air. So we 

will be taking these things up. 

All right, getting back. We now will hear from Senator Merkley, 

followed by Senator Boozman, followed by Senator Udall, and then 

we will get to our witnesses. 

Senator Merkley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Administrator Jackson and Dr. 

Birnbaum, for coming, and for your work to ensure safe drinking 

water for all Americans. 

I appreciate the work of the EPA on helping to establish an appropriate testing regime for cryptosporidium in the Bull Run and 

also for your hard work on the tailoring rule to put biomass into 

the proper life cycle context. So I look forward to your testimony 

today and thank you. 

Senator BOXER. That was amazingly brief. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You caught me by surprise. 

Senator Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. I will follow in the Senator’s footsteps. It sounds like we need to move on and that the question period is going to be interesting. 

I was the Ranking Member on Water Resources, and had the opportunity of working with both of the witnesses over there, and 

look forward to working with them in the future. These are very 

serious problems. I think the key is, as we move forward, we have 

to have sound science, we have to have sound methodology to back 

things up. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Madam Chair, there maybe a stampede here. I 

am going to put my opening statement into the record, so we can 

get directly to the witnesses. 
14 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, that is very kind. 

Administrator Jackson, we welcome you and please, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and members of the Committee. I will ask permission for my 

opening statement to also be put into the record, and I will just 

give a few remarks here in the interest of time. 

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the safety of our Nation’s 

water. As we sit here every day across the country, Americans, 

rural areas and urban areas, rich, poor, red States and blue States, 

turn on their taps with one expectation, that the water that comes 

out will be safe for them and for their families to drink. The EPA, 

along with the States, who implement our Nation’s drinking water 

laws, are responsible for ensuring that our water is safe, which 

means addressing not only infrastructure, but new and emerging 

contaminants as they present themselves to us, and if they affect 

the public health, especially the health of our children. 

Today I am pleased to announce that EPA has begun the process 

of controlling toxic contamination of the chemical commonly known 

as perchlorate in our drinking water. Perchlorate is a toxic component of rocket fuel. It is not naturally occurring; it can cause thyroid problems and may disrupt the normal growth and development of children in the womb. 

This decision has been years in the making, but it is essentially 

about two things. First and foremost, it is about protecting the 

health of the between 5 million and 17 million Americans that have 

perchlorate in the water that they drink. Second, this decision is 

about following the science. Perchlorate has been studied and reviewed for years. The science has led to this decision. It has been 

peer-reviewed by independent scientists, by public health experts 

and many others. 

The next step for us is to update our laws in a way that is sensible and practical for protecting the health of the American people. 

So when we do that, as we look at our regulations for perchlorate, 

we will look at the feasibility and affordability of treatment systems, the costs and the benefits of potential standards, and of 

course, we will make sure our approach continues to be based on 

sound, up to date science. 

We will also continue to make sure that we act as quickly as possible to protect our health from emerging threats in our drinking 

water, including one we also heard about this morning, hexavalent 

chromium, also called chromium VI, a toxic chemical and contaminant that is already a well-known human carcinogen when it is inhaled. The issue now is that recent animal testing, publicly available, has demonstrated carcinogenicity that is associated with ingesting chromium VI in drinking water. That discovery, along with 

the recent report by the Environmental Working Group that found 

elevated levels of chromium VI at the tap in 20 public water systems, has heightened public concern about chromium VI. 

Now, this report was a snapshot in time. But it is consistent with 

other studies that we have seen that have detected chromium VI 
15 

in public water systems. As with perchlorate, science will guide all 

of our actions on chromium VI. We are working to finalize our 

human health assessment for the chemical. There will be an independent and external scientific peer review this spring. We expect 

to finalize our health assessment by the end of the year. 

Based on the current draft assessment, it is likely that we will 

tighten our drinking water standards for this chemical. However, 

let me be clear: we will wait for our human health assessment on 

chromium VI to be finalized and to have gone through full peer review. 

In the meantime, we have taken a series of steps to better understand the threat and protect the health of the American people. We 

are working with State and local officials in monitoring to find out 

how widespread and prevalent this contaminant might be in our 

Nation’s drinking water. 

Second, we have provided voluntarily guidance to all water systems nationwide on how to test for chromium VI. Finally, EPA is 

offering technical expertise and assistance to those communities 

that have the highest levels of chromium VI. 

Finally, I would like to give a very brief update on a larger picture, and that is where we are with our drinking water strategy 

at EPA. I announced it about a year ago. The strategy is actually 

designed to transform the agency, so that we can use our existing 

Safe Drinking Water laws to achieve greater health and protection 

more quickly, more cost-effectively and transparently. We have 

made a great deal of progress. 

One key component is the idea of addressing contaminants as 

groups of contaminants that act the same way in our bodies. As the 

agency has traditionally looked at each contaminant alone. I am 

pleased to announce that EPA has selected out first group to look 

at, it is the group of volatile organic compounds that are carcinogenic, and includes things like industrial solvents that may cause 

cancer. 

Another component of the strategy is to work with universities 

to move the science along, to let our entrepreneurs and engineers 

help us address our problems. Two weeks ago, I was in Cincinnati 

in our engineering lab with the Small Business Administration, 

with Proctor and Gamble, with GE, with small businesses who are 

excited about the business opportunities associated with solving 

our Nation’s water challenges. 

In closing, Madam Chairman, clean and safe drinking water is 

the foundation of healthy communities, healthy families, and yes, 

healthy economies. Clean and safe water is not a luxury, it is not 

a privilege, it is the right of every single American. I look forward 

to working with this Committee to that end, and in answering any 

questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to discuss the safety of our Nation’s drinking water. Every day, 

Americans drink water from the taps in our homes, in our work places, and at our 

family’s day care and schools. Having safe drinking water is essential to our health, 

our children’s health and our economy. 
16 

1 Citation in IRIS Toxicological Review: NTP. (2008) NTP technical report on the toxicology 

and carcinogenesis studies of sodium dichromate dihydrate (CAS No. 7789–12–0) in F344/N rats 

and B6C3F1 mice (drinking water studies). Washington, DC: National Toxicology Program; NTP 

TR 546. Available online at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/546lweblFINAL.pdf (accessed January 29, 2008). 

EPA affirms the goal of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect American’s health by ensuring that the Nation’s drinking water supply is safe. We have 

made significant progress since Congress wrote and passed SDWA 35 years ago, but 

we still face challenges. While we’ve put in place standards to address more than 

90 drinking water contaminants, there are many more contaminants of emerging 

concern, which science has only recently allowed us to detect at very low levels. We 

need to keep pace with the increasing knowledge and potential public health implications from the growing number of chemicals that may be present in our products, 

our water, and our bodies. EPA understands our responsibility under the law to respond to new challenges, both to protect the public’s health and to sustain Americans’ confidence in the safety of their drinking water for themselves and their children. 

SDWA defines a rigorous process to keep drinking water standards up to date to 

respond to improving science and emerging concerns. Two contaminants that have 

received a great deal of public attention recently, perchlorate and hexavalent chromium (chromium-6), provide examples of EPA activities to protect public health. 

EPA is evaluating the opportunity for health risk reductions from unregulated contaminants such as perchlorate, and reviewing existing standards, such as chromium, 

to determine if public health protections can be improved. I would like to highlight 

actions we are taking right now to focus our efforts on these contaminants in light 

of evolving science indicating the potential for greater public health concerns that 

prompts the need for an effective response. 

PERCHLORATE

When I became the EPA Administrator, I committed to re-evaluate EPA’s 2008 

preliminary determination not to regulate perchlorate. In August 2009, EPA asked 

for public comment on our re-evaluation of the science supporting the perchlorate 

regulatory determination. We have received almost 39,000 comments on this and 

previous perchlorate notices and we continue to evaluate the evolving science. I remain committed to completing a regulatory determination for perchlorate and expect 

to announce the results of our evaluation soon. 

HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (CHROMIUM-6)

EPA also has the responsibility to reevaluate our existing regulations to ensure 

they stay current with science advancements including health assessments, improvements in technology, or other factors that may provide important opportunities 

to maintain or improve public health protections. An example is our regulation of 

total chromium and the evolving science on hexavalent chromium (referred to as 

chromium-6). Our total chromium drinking water standard applies to all forms of 

chromium and was established in 1991 based on the best available science at that 

time. This standard was designed to prevent the health effects from the more toxic 

form of chromium, which is chromium-6. 

However, the science behind chromium-6 is evolving. For example, recent animal 

testing data by the National Toxicology Program1 have found evidence of carcinogenicity that was not previously associated with ingesting chromium-6. EPA is already on a path toward identifying and addressing potential health threats from 

long-term exposure to chromium-6 with a new draft health assessment released this 

past fall. 

This assessment still needs to be reviewed by independent scientists before a determination of whether or not to revise the drinking water standard for total chromium or set a specific standard for chromium-6. A recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has increased awareness and public concern about 

the presence of chromium-6 in drinking water. While this report was a ‘‘snapshot 

in time,’’ it is consistent with other studies that have also detected chromium-6 in 

public water systems. 

EPA recently committed to a series of actions to address chromium-6 in our drinking water. First, EPA is working with State and local officials to better determine 

how widespread and prevalent this contaminant is in our Nation’s drinking water. 

Second, we provided guidance to all water systems nationwide on how to sample 

and test drinking water for chromium-6. This guidance, released on January 11, 

2011, provides recommendations on where systems should collect samples, how fre-
17 

quently samples should be collected, and analytical methods for laboratory testing. 

We believe that systems that perform the enhanced monitoring recommended in 

EPA’s guidance will be able to better inform their consumers about any presence 

of chromium-6 in their drinking water, evaluate the degree to which other forms of 

chromium are transformed into chromium-6, and assess the extent to which existing 

treatment affects the levels of chromium-6 in drinking water. Third, EPA is also offering technical expertise and assistance to communities cited in the EWG report 

as having the highest levels of chromium-6 in drinking water. 

Strong science and the law will continue to be the foundation of our decisionmaking at EPA. EPA takes its obligation to ensure the safety of the water supply 

very seriously and will continue to do all that we can, using sound science and the 

law, to protect people’s health. 

DRINKING WATER STRATEGY

EPA national drinking water standards for contaminants such as chromium are 

essential to the protection of our water quality, but these individual regulations cannot keep pace with the thousands of chemicals that have been identified as being 

in commerce via the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and those that may be introduced in the future. In March 2010, I outlined a vision seeking to use existing 

authorities where appropriate to achieve greater health protection more quickly, 

cost-effectively, and transparently. I am pleased to say that in the last year we have 

made a great deal of progress on this approach. 

One key component of the new drinking water strategy is to address contaminants as groups rather than individually. The traditional framework for drinking 

water regulation focuses on detailed assessment of each individual contaminant of 

concern and can take many years. Throughout 2010, EPA engaged stakeholders in 

a national conversation about how we might streamline this process by addressing 

multiple contaminants at once, which may provide protections more quickly and also 

allow utilities to implement them more efficiently. We have examined a number of 

contaminant groups that have a common health endpoint of concern, a common 

treatment approach, and/or common measurement methods. 

I am pleased to announce that EPA has selected the first contaminant group and 

will be working toward developing one regulation to address up to 16 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), which are chemicals such as industrial solvents. This 

group will include trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE), which I 

announced last March we’d be revising, as well as up to 14 other VOCs that may 

cause cancer, some that are currently regulated and some that have not previously 

been regulated. EPA will also evaluate whether to regulate nitrosamines as a group. 

We have found these disinfection byproducts in a number of water systems and will 

assess whether or not this group of contaminants should be regulated as part of our 

next round of regulatory determinations. 

The second component of the drinking water strategy is to foster development of 

new drinking water technologies to address health risks more comprehensively and 

cost-effectively. On January 18, I announced, in partnership with the U.S. Small 

Business Administration, the formation of a regional water technology innovation 

cluster in the Greater Cincinnati, Dayton, Northern Kentucky and Indiana region. 

The cluster involves businesses, universities and governments working together to 

promote economic growth and technology innovation. The cluster will not only assist 

in developing technology safeguards for drinking water and the protection of public 

health, but it will also encourage economic development and create jobs. 

A third component of our new drinking water approach is to utilize provisions of 

multiple laws, where appropriate, to better protect drinking water. EPA offices have 

identified contaminants of mutual concern under drinking water, pesticide and toxic 

laws. By sharing information collected and analyses we can make sure that the best 

science is available to further public health protection goals. For example, occurrence data collected for SDWA reviews can inform decisions made to protect water 

resources under pesticide and toxics laws, while health effects information from pesticides and toxics laws can be used to provide advisory benchmark information to 

States and water systems that may find these chemicals in their water supplies. 

Finally, because Americans have a right to know and to be assured that their 

drinking water is safe, the fourth component of the strategy is to provide easy access to drinking water compliance monitoring data. Taking a step toward this goal, 

in November 2010, EPA partnered with the Environmental Council of the States, 

the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and the Association of 

State Drinking Water Administrators to establish a data sharing memorandum of 

understanding (MOU). Under this MOU, EPA and the States will collaborate on developing the advanced information technology necessary to facilitate sharing and 
18 

analysis of the large amount of data. This will help us better understand national 

trends in occurrence of drinking water contaminants and will enable consumers to 

easily obtain information about the quality of their drinking water. 

Clean and safe water is the foundation of healthy communities, healthy families, 

and healthy economies. I want to emphasize that EPA is committed to working with 

our State partners to build the Nation’s confidence that these resources are safe and 

to provide Americans with clean and safe drinking water every day. 

I greatly appreciate the leadership of this Committee on the Safe Drinking Water 

Act and we look forward to coordinating with Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and Members of the Committee as we work to achieve these important goals. 

[RESPONSES BY LISA JACKSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOLLOW.] 
19 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

"Oversight Hearing on Public Health and Drinking Water Issues" 

Questions for the Record 

EPA Administrator Jackson 

February 2. 2011 

Senator Barbara BOxer 

1. Please describe the importance of tbe Ageoey using tbe best avaHable science to develop 

driDkiDg water safeguards for percblorate? 

RESPONSE: The EPA believes the use of best available peer reviewed science. adherence to the law. 

and transparency are critical foundations for developing effective drinking water regulations that are 

protective ofpubHc health. The agency is committed to using the best available science and peer 

reviewed data in developing a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for perc:blorate. The agency 

will consult with our Science Advisory Board and with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council 

in developing the perchlorate drinking water standard. In addition. the EPA will provide an opportunity 

for public comment on the proposed regulation, and will carefully evaluate and consider any new studies 

and data submitted by public commenters in developing a final regulation. 

1. Could you explain the role that stakeholders wUI have In developing driDkiDg water safeguards 

to address perchlorate contamination? 

RESPONSE: Stakeholder participation is a key to developing a high quality and effective drinking 

water regulation. When the EPA publishes the proposed regulation and supporting analyses for 

perchlorate, there will be an opportunity for public review and comment from drinking water 

stakeholders and the public generally. The EPA will review and consider the public comments in 

promulgating a final regulation for perehlorate. In addition, on Mareh 3, 2011. the EPA hosted a public 

meeting to engage stakeholders on environmental justice considerations for drinking water regulatory 

efforts. including perchlorate. If the EPA determines that the regulation may have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA will also conduct targeted small entity 

outreach consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

3. Cbromlum-6 Is a beavy metal that has been Unked to a variety ofhealtb effects, including 

cancer. Could you please describe the main health threats that the Ageney Is studying related 

to chromlum-6 In drinking water, including any potential threats to the health of pregnant 

women, infants and chUdren? . 

RESPONSE: The agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has prepared a draft 

Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (20 I O) which is currently undergoing public comment 

and extemal peer review by an independent panel of scientific experts. This draft Toxicological Review 

is are-assessment of non cancer health effects and a new assessment of cancer health effects of 

hexavalent chromium following oral exposure to this substance (e.g .• ingestion of drinking water 

containing hexavalent chromium) based on a review of the peer-reviewed published scientific literature. 

The National Toxicology Program (NTP. 2008) recently concluded that there is "clear evidence of 

carcinogenic effects" in rats and mice based on results from lifetime studies in which animals were exposed to hexavalent chromium in drinking water at doses above 5 ppm. These studies showed an 
20 

increased incidence of oral tumors in rats and an increased incidence of tumors of the small intestine in 

mice. In addition, effects in humans have been reported in populations exposed unintentionally to 

elevated levels of hexavalent chromium over an extended period of time. In one study, dita from a 

Chinese popUlation exposed to chromium-contaminated soils and drinking water provide some evidence 

of an excess risk of mortality from stomach cancerl2• These Chinese villagers had been exposed to levels 

of hexavalent chromium up to 20 milligrams per liter. In laboratory animals, the most sensitive 

noncancer effects have been adverse changes to tissues of the small inlestine.liver, and lymph nodes of 

bolh rats and mice]. At higher doses, reproductive and developmental effects have been found in 

animals. For example. when exposed to hexavalent chromium in drinking waler, i-odents (both rats and 

mice) display decreased fertility, increased incidences of fetal loss, and external and skeletal 

abnormalities4

• Adverse effects on fertility are observed in both male and female rats and mice at 

concentrations· of 2S0 ppm and higher. The draft toxicity reference values (i.e .• reference dose and oral 

cancer slope factor) derived in the draft Toxicological Review are based on the health effects described 

above. These values take into account the increased susceptibility of sensitive populations such as 

pregnant women, 'infants. and children. which includes recommending the use of age-dependent 

adjustment factors to evaluate cancer risks in children. The draft Toxicological Review has been peer 

reviewed by an independent expert peer review pane). The EPA recently received the final comments 

from the external peer review Committee. whose report can be found at: 

hl1R:llcfuub.epa.gOvlilcea/iris dmfts/~is.play.clin?deid=22l433. 

4. EPA currently has a draft IRIS RIsk Assess~ent for chromium"'. Plene describe how tbe 

agency wW use tbe assessment In determining wbether to develop drinking water safeJuards to 

address chromium'" contamlliation. . 

RESPONSE: The draft IRIS Toxicological Review for hexavalent chromium. released in September 

2010. is an assessment of the health effects ofheiaiVaient chromium folloWing oral ;eXposure based on a 

review of the peer-reviewed published scientific literature. The external peer review panel mel in May 

2011. and the final peer revi~ report was posted on the EPA's website on July 21, ~Oll. The EPA is 

reviewing the external peer review report and is evaluating the peerrilvieW and public comments arid 

incorporating them into the assessment. Finalizing our health assessment is a crltieal ~ep' to assure'li 

sound scientific and transparent basis for decision making. When finalized, the EPA Will carefully 

review the assessment and other relevant information to determine if a revised standard to address 

hexavalent chromium in drinking water is needed. 

s. On January II, 2011, EPA issued guidance to drinking water utiUdes on how they ean voluntarily' test for ehromlum-liln drinking water. Could you please explain why tlie Agency 

issued tbls guidance and the process that EPA used to develop the document? 

RESPONSE: The EPA issued the moriitoring guidance to provide information to public water systems 

(PWSs) about how they can obtain bener i~ormation about how to measure 1he levels of chromium-6 in 

• Zhang. J; U, X. (1987) Chromium pollutIOn of soli and watet In JI ..... ou. J of Chlm"e Preventive Med 21:262·264. 

, Beaumont et al. (2008) CIncer mortality In a ChInese population exposed to heMavalent chromium In drlnklnll water. 

Epldemlolosv 19(1):12-23.. . 

• NTP. (2008) NTP tecltnlcal report on the toxfCOloav and carcll10llenesls studies of sodium dichromate dihydrate (CAS No. 

nsg.u-o) In F344/N rats and 860F1 mice (drlnldnti water studies), Washlnston. DC: National ToxicolollY Prosram; NTP TR 

546. Available online at http://ntp.nlehs.nlh.aov/Ries/546_web_FlNAl.pdf 

• Elbetleha A, AI·Hamoed MH. 1997. Lonll"term exposure of mate and femala mice to trivalent and h_valent chromium 

compounds: Effects offertlllty. ToX/colOllV 116:39-47. 
21 

their drinking water, detennine the levels ofbeXavalent chromium in the !1isJribilti<SJJ syS!emf, iI!kl8!isesS 

the degree to,which existing tmltrnent is affecting the levels ofhex!lvaleijt c.!u'9mJUf.il: ~~A dev~loped this guidance,Jhrough discussion with numerous stakeholdelS including SUlle drl'lfIfiA ~t.!'l' ,,:, " 

administ:fatorS. representatives from commerclallaboratories with "'Jlerl~ cv~ldalihg cjiiOiDlwiJ g in 

drinking water, and laboratory equipment manufacturers. Care was taken to provide U{e pUbljt W8t~t 

system community with accurate and complete inronnation 10 allow them to.~ns!ai!t tnpmtQlini.. ~';' chromium-6 in their water. The EPA continues to work with state and local,dtlnk(ni Walet oillclils to 

develop ftequen~y asked questions (FAQs) to address technical aspeCts ~r ~li~4 8h~ i¥ .~ilJiicaJ method as well as recommended responses to consumer's questionS about hFlcal'liltirit clij(;inlitift'in 

drinking water. . 

6. Chromlum-61s one of the toxic metals tIult ean leacb into 5ul'taee and gt:'Oltad *a~~ from coal 

asb. Has EPA investigated the estent that coal ash imponndments and ttber ~ • ii"" may 

be a sOllree of ehromium-6 contamination in grOundwater and snrfaee~ateri'l D' . • ...... 

Agency intend to take Into acconnt tbe potential of «:oal'asb t~ leach cbroml"m-6 is the Agency 

determines bow to regulate tbe disposal of coal ash? 

RESPONSE: Yes. The EPA is aware that coal ash impoundments and other disposal sites may be a 

source of hexavalent chromium contamination to ground and surface waters because hexavalent 

chromium is more soluble than chromium-3 and leaches out of coal ash under certain conditions at 

higher level~ qum does c~mium-3. The EPA is considering infonnation .from its damage cases and 

other data and infol'll1ftion provided during the public ~mment period associated with its coal 

combustion residual (CCR) rulemaking as the agency determines how best to regulate CCRs. 

7. Please provide me with an update on tbe status of EPA's study on tbe potential impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing 011 groundwater alld surface waters. 

RESPONSE: The draft plan was reviewed by a special panel of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) on 

March 7-8, 2011. The SAB Panel Teleased im.lnitial draft report on Its findings on Apri) 28, and 

subsequently. di~ussed the report at pu»lic teleconference ,calls on May 19 and 25. Upon, receipt of the 

fina1 report, the EPA will consider the Panel's recommendations along with commCl\ts that the SAB 

received from Sl!lkeholders. The agency ~1l provide a response to the SAB, revise the study plan 

accordingly, and undertake research consistent with the final study plan. Initial findings will be released 

in late 2012. 

8. Tbe following questions concern tbe collfent of the Agency's study on the potential impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing: 

. A. WID the Agency incinc,tc an assessment of the extent to whicb Section.32l of tbe Energy 

PoUcy Act or 100s wbleb.con~ined some exemptions related to bydraullc f'r!acturing under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground Injection Control Program, had an impact on 

the ability of EPA to .... \ly Investigate reported instances of drinking water contamination or other Impacts from bydraullc fracturing? 

RESPONSE: No. The EPA is committed to study the potential impacts of hydraulic fraClJlrlng on drinking water resources. The EPA study will not evaluate alternative policy options, but will evaluate 

the impacts of hydraulic fracturing as it is currently practiced. 
22 

B. Please describe whether EPA will also Include an asseSsment of the extent to which 11011-

dlsclosnre agreements signed by penons who settled elafllll against compaDies thilt aUegedly 

colltalllillated tholr water supplies from hydraulic fracturing may have bad aD impact OD the 

ability ofEP A to ruUy investigate reported IllltaDCes of driDking water cOlltamlnatioD or other impacts from hydraulic fracturing? . 

RESPONSE: The EPA is not assessing non-disclosure agn:ements. The EPA is considering wIlat 

additional infonnation, if any, would provide useful data for our assessment of the potential Impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. 

9. (NO QUESTION 9) 

to. EPA's draft hydraulic fracturing study proposes to look at how large volume water 

withdrawals from ground alld surface watcn to conduct hydralllic fraoiUrIag might impact 

drinking water availability alld quality. Is EPA committed to examilling these impacts alld 

Including itS assessment and findings In the finll study? . 

RESPONSE: The EPA will make a final determination regarding this Issue taking into consideration 

input from the Science Advisoty Board. 

11. Does EPA ,",ve a plau to investigate the potential adverse humID health effects of releases of 

toxic ail' poUutlllts frOID gas drilling operations involving hydraulic fracturing operations, 

including·Wleases of air pollutants from the prlctice of spray evaporation of return flow and 

process wlter from hydraulic fracturing operations? 

RESPONSE: ·As directed by the request from the 20iO Congressional Appropriations Committee. the 

EPA's study is of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources, thus the 

EPA considers air impacts outside the scope of the current study. Nonetheless, in the course of the 

EPA's evaluation of air emissions under the Clean Air Act (CM Sections III and 112), including thoSe 

of criteria pollutants and toxics, and available controls for such emissions from the oil and gas 

production sector, we intend to consider the impacts of those emissions on public health, as well as 

improvements to health that would be expected to result from possible revisions to the emission 

standards. Oui assessment would not be specific to air emissions from fracturing activities per se, but 

would consider emissions from all relevllllt activities, including well completions, evaporation ponds, 

and spray evaporation operations. 

11. The Safe Drinking Water Aet prohibits the use of dlesol fuel iD bydraullc fraoiUring . 

operatioDS. However, there are reports that describe the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic 

fraetDriog operatioDS. Please provide the CommiHee with an update on the EPA IS effortsts 

Investigate the use of diesel fuellD hydraulic fraoiUring operations, aud the actiou that tbe 

Agency bas ta'ken and could take to protect public health and environmeDtal quality from any 

such use. .. 

RESPONSE: The EPA is aware of reports that diesel fuel is being used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. 

We have embarked on an expeditious effon to clarifY the permitting process as it relates to diesel use in 

hydraulic fracturing operations under the Underground Il\iection Control program. The law states that a permit must be issued for the use of diesel ifinjected underground for the purposes of hydraulic 

fracturing. We are in the process of engaging the public, industry, states and environmental groups as 
23 

we develop permitting guidance for companies' that use diesel fuel.. Our intention is to issue mit 

guidance for.public comment, following a dialogue with stakeholders. 

In addition, ~ described above, the EPA's study on the relationship b¢~en hyciia~ic ~itS;.ad drinking water has already involved engagement with thousands of AmeriCiIDs i!C~ tJic ~~ living 

in areas where hydraulic fracturing Is laklng place. This effort includC!i.die EPA rtq)i~fhli~8n.ificant 

infonnation Iiom nine companies involved in this process regarding the chllmic8!·t!f!1tW.I~Oil cifthe 

fracturing fluids they are injecting into the ground, Incl~ding diesel fuel, an~ other ·j~ni1lit!on. The 

data requested is integral to the Hydraulic Fracturing Study and understanding I!fIY· ~telitlM relationship 

between drinking water and hydraulic fracturing. '. '.' . . 

The EPA is committed to protecting public health and the envirorunent amf will not hesitate to take 

enforcement action against any entities continuing 10 use diesel fuel in h)!dralllic fracturing without 

authorization. Whether the EPA will take enforcement action against !XllJlppniC!' tIlat inj~ diesel fuel 

in past hydraulic fracturing operations will depend on the particular facts 4I1dcircumstances of each 

elise. That said, in order to protect the confidentiality of potenlial~e deveh),P.Illel)ts IIIId I!SSUfC 

effective enforcement, the EPA cannot comment on potential enforcement investigations or responses. 

13. At least 2 EPA Regions have issued emergency orders pursuant·to Section 1431' of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act to gas drllliDg compania engaged in hydraulic fracturing where EPA 

determined that cantamlDants in dripking witter may PteJellt.an imminent and·snbstantial 

endangerment tQ the health of people drinking thatwateJ:. Please provide the eommittce with 

copla of all such emergency .orders relating to drilling operatious involving hydranlic 

fracturing. 

RESPONSE: We. assume the Senator is reCening to the EPA's recent Fort Peck and Range orders. We 

have attached those. orders here. 

(See attached file: range _ order.pdO. 

(See attached file: poplar_order.pdf.) Previous orders issued in the Poplar matter may be found at: 

http://www·epa.gov/regioo8lcompliancel 

14. EPA has announced that It intends. to regulate some drinking water contamillants as a group, 

rather tbaa J'!i'Clllatin, one contaminant at a time. In your tatimony.you state tbat EPA bas 

selected a group of up to 16 volatile organic compounds (VOCS") as the fin. contaminant 

group UDder this new approach. Please eqJlalD how this approach provlda greater public 

health protection aud how it CaD help to expedite the pace of the Agency's development of sueh 

standards. . 

RESPONSE: The current approach to drinking water protecti(>1) is focused on a detailed assessment DC 

each individual contaminant of concern and can take many years. Addressing contaminants as a group 

rather than individually may provide public health protections more quickly and also allow utilities to more effectively and efficiently plan for improvements. 

The agency determined that carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are appropriate to 

regulate as a group because they meet the following factors: 

(a) the public health goal is similar because they all may cause cancer; 
24 

(b) most of this group of VOCs can be measured by the same analytical method (i.e., EPA 524.2 

located on the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/samlpdfslEPA-524.2.pdt); 

(c) many can be treated by the same treatment technologies (i.e .• aeration andlor granuillr activated 

carbon); and ' 

(d) a preliminary evaluation of occurrence indicates that some of these voes may co-occur and all are expected to be found in drinking water. ' ' 

15. In Mareh 2011. EPA aDnoaneed the results of Its Second 6-Vear Review of existing National 

Primary Drlnldng Water Standards and Identified triebloroethylene ("TCE") as a candidate 

for revtslon based on a review oftbe selenee on Its hcalth effeets. Provide the Committee with 

the following: 

A. The history of the Agency's development of a risk assessment for TCE, Indadlng the 

eoneluslonl, of,any National Academy ofSeienllllS reports eoneernlng EPA'. assessment 

and findings ofTCE's heakh effeets, ineludlng risks to ehUdren's bealtb and caneer risks; 

RESPONSE: In August 2001, the EPA released an "External Review Draft Trichloroethylene Health 

Risk Assessment: SyntheSis and Characteiizatlon" for public review and cominent. The EPA's Science 

Advisory Board'(SAB) met in June 2002 to review this draft health assessment. In their review, 

released December 2002, the SAB commended the agency for its gl'Oundbreaking work in several 

important new areas In risk assessment, but identified a need to strengthen the rigor of the discussion 

and address several key substantive areas. S 

In February 2004, the EPA hosted a Symposium on New Scientific Research Related to the Health 

Etrects ofTrichloroethylene. The purpose of this symposium was to gather infonnatlon on recently 

published scientific research for use by the EPA in assessing the human health risks ofTCE. 

Subsequently, a federal interagency working group coordinated by the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP) decided that a scientific eonsultation with a National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) panel would be beneficial and infonnative to clarifY the state of the science as the EPA 

moved forward in completing its health risk assessment. This consultation was initiated in September 

2004 under sponsorship of the EPA and other federal agencies. 

In February 200S, the EPA submitted four papers of key scientific Issues related to TCE to the NAS. In 

July 2006, the NAS released the report "Assessing the Human Health Risks ofTrichloroethylene: Key 

Scientific Issues Consultation." In this report, the NAS eoncluded that the "evidence on carcinogenic 

risk and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene has strengthened since 200 1." The 

NAS recommended that risk assessment be finalized "with currently available data. tt6 Based on these 

reviews. symposia and reports, the EPA revised the dral\ health assessment for TCE. 

In November 2009, the BPA released a "Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (External Review 

Draft)" for public comment and peer review by the EPA's SAB. In 2010, the BPA's SAB hosted a public meeting and several public teleconferences to review the draft document. The SAB peer review 

report was transmitted to the EPA Administrator on January II, 2011. Overall, the SAB panel 

supported the BPA's scientific approaches to the risk assessment and found these to appropriately adhere 

• http://www.epa.llov/sab/pdf/ehc03002.pdf ' • National Research COundl. COmmittee on Human Heallh Risks of Tticltloroelhylene'(2006). • Assessing the Human Heallh 

Risks ofTrichloroethyiane: Key ScIentific Issues." 
25 

to the BPA's risk assessment guidelines, and the SAB commended the EPA for its comprehensive 

approach and responsiveness to the NAS recommendations'. The SAB panel also made a number of 

recommencia!ions aimed at enhancing the transparency of the draft assessment and strengthening the 

scientific basis for the conclusions presented. 

B. The current status .fEPA's assessmeD' of the potential health risks from exposure to 

TCE;and 

~PONSE: The EPA is cunently revising its "Toxicological Review ofTricbloroethylene (External 

Review Draft). .. taking into consideration external peer review and public comments. The draft will 

then undergo a final EPA Internal review and an EPA-led interagency science discussion with other 

federal agencies and White House offices. The completed assessment is expected to be publicly 

available and posted on the IRIS database dl.lling the fourth quarter of FY 2011. 

,C. A schedule for EPA revision of.lta drinking water stlllldard for TeE. 

RESPONSE: The EPA: plans to revise the TCE standard,as part of the carcinogenic VOCs rulemalcing. 

Regulatory effo\'ls to begin addressing carcinogenic VOCs were initiate!i in ~I!. 2011. Typically, it 

takes about two to two and a half years to develop a ~d rule and following that about two years to 

promulgate a final rule. 

'http://yosemlte.epa,lov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21el8S2S6eba00436459/873D5039A8F18480852S7817004A1 

988/$Flle/EPA-SAB-ll..Q02-unsisned.pdf 
26 

SeDa!or James M.lnbofe 

1. Wbat criteria does EPA use to determine whether to establJsh a uniform, national drinking 

water standard for any chemleal? 

L wm tbese be tbe same criteria applled,to chromium 6? 

b. Will these be the same criteria applied to perchlorate? 

Co Will these be the same criteria applied to Volatile Organic Compounds (V0Cs)? 

RESPONSE: The EPA's determination to promulgate a national primary drinking water·regulation for 

unregulated contaminants Is made based upon the three criteria established under Section 1412.b.l a of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act: 

i. the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons; , 

Ii. the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant 

win occur in public! Water systems with a frequency and at levels ofpilblic health-Concern; and '. 

iii. in the sole judgment orthe Admlnlstl'ator, regulation of such contaminant presents a 

meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems: 

These criteria WON utilized in the determination to regulate 'perchlorate in drinking water, and will be 

the criteria the agency uses to determine whether or not to include the' eight· unregulated carcinogenic 

volatile organic compounds (V0Cs) as part of the carcinogenic VOC regulation the agency is currently 

developing. For currently regulated contaminants such as chromium and the eight regulated· 

carcinogenic ·YOCs, the EPA will review and revise the regulation(s). as appropriatOi lind any revision 

shall maintain or provide for greater protection of the health of persons in accordance with Section 

1412.b.9 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. For revisions, the EPA also uses the "meanlngli.J1 opportunity" 

criterion to eicamine whether the contaminant is found at levels and frequency that would mean thet a 

revised standard would provide a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction fot persons served by 

public water systems. . 

2. How long does It normally take EPA to develop a thoughtful drlnkiog water regulation, that Is, 

from the ·time the draft IRIS TOoxlcologleal Review !sltaned, through setting the m8llmum 

coatamlaaat levelaoal and the development-ad publlsh!ag or the maximum contaminate level 

drinking water .taadard? - '. ' 

RESPONSE: IRIS toxicological reviews and development of national primary. drinking water, 

standards are related actions which lake place on separate timetables. The development of an IRIS 

Toxicological Review'ls a process that takes two years from initiation to completion for the majority of 

assessments. (see bttp;!/www.epa.g9vruislPJOCeSs.blm for mOore information). For a simple assessment, 

it typically takes the agency 345 days to develop the draft document and then approximately anether 

year for public comment, peer review, and revising the final assessment. However, for mere complex 

assessments the process can take longer. -

For the development ofa new National Primary Drinking Water Standard, Section 1412.b.l.B olthe 

Safe Drinking water Act allows up to four years and three months (two yean to propose. a year and a 

half to promulgate and up to a nine month extension) from the time a formal determination Is made that 

a standard is needed pursuant tOo Section 1412.b.l of the SDWA. For revisions to existing drinking 
27 

water standards, SDWA does not specify a time frame, but typically, we anticipate it will take between 

four and four and a half years. This time is used to perfonn !he necessary analyses and consultations to 

propose revisions, obtain public comment, evaluate comments, revise analyses and prom,u1gate the final 

rule. 

3. Moving with speed, what Is tbe shortest time it would ~ke EPA to develop a thoughtful, 

denberate, National Primary Drinking Water Standard for aDY chemical? 

RESPONSE: We believe the three and a half year timeframe set out under Section 14 12.b. I.E of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (without !he nine month extension at the option of !he Administrator) 

represents a reasoitable time to perfonn, the necessary analyses and consultations to propose revisions 

and obtain public comment, evaluate comments, revise analyses and promulgate the final rule. The pace 

of !he schedule will be impacted by the availability of the necessary science and the extent and 

substance of comments. In promulgating a national primary drinking water standard, the EPA must 

establish a maximum contaminant level goal, evaluate feasibility and affordability ofrell)oving the 

contaminant, and prepare a health risk reduction co" analysis. The EPA is required to consult with our 

Science Advisory Board, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and the Department of HcaI!h 

and Human Services. We must also convene a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

Panel for rules that have a significant impact on small systems. 

In situations of "an urgent threat to public health as determined by the Administrator after consultation 

with the Secretary of Hea!th and auman Serviccs," ,SDWASection 1412.b.I.D allows that !he 

Administrator- may promulgate an interim national ,primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant 

wi!hout making an official regulatory determina,tion and before completing all cost benefit analyses. 

These analyses must then be completed no later !han three years after the date on which !he interim 

regulation is ,promulgated., 

4. Sinee the 199/i SDWA ameQdments were passed how many decisions bas EPA made regarding 

whether or not to regulate eGnstituents in drinking water? In that regard, how many times has 

EPA deelded not to regulate a chemical? 

RESPONSE: The agency has made 21, regulatory determinations since the 1996 amendments to !he 

SDWA. The 1996 SOW A B!Uendments define a process for decision making regarding currently 

unregulated contaminants. Steps Include development of a Contaminant Candidate List (CeL) to 

identify priority contaminants for information collection, and !hen making regulatory determinations for 

at least five contaminants from the recent CCL every five years. The agency published final regulatory 

determinations not to regulate nine contaminants on the first Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) in July 

of2003. The agency published final regulatory determinations not to regulate I I contaminants on the 

second CCL in July 2008. in February 2011, the agency published the final regulatory determination to 

regulate perchlorate, which is the first positive regulatory detennination by the EPA. 

S. How many adjustments to existing drinking water regulations has EPA made through the 6 

year review process? Please provide a list of all dedsioDli. 

RESPONSE: In July, 2003 the agency announced the review results for the agency's first Six-Vear 

Review (Six-Vear Review I). The agency reviewed 69 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

(NPDWRs) that were established prior to 1997. These 69 NPDWRs include 68 chemical NPDWRs and 

!he Total Coliform Rule (TCR). Based on the agency's review, as well as !he public comments received 
28 

and other new information, a decision was made to revise the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). The agency 

determined that the 68 chemical NPDWRs remained appropriate at that time. 

In Man:h 2010, the agency announced the review results for the agency's second Six-Year Review (SixYear Review 2). After performing a detailed review of71 NPDWRs (promulgated prior to 200S), the 

agency believes that 67 NPDWRs remain appropriate (i.e., do not need to be revised at this time) and 

four NPDWRs are candidates for regulatory revision. These four NPDWRs include acrylamlde, 

epichlorohydrin, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. 

In addition, several regulations have bccn revised "off cycle" (not as Six-Year Review decisions to 

revise), such as the Total Coliform Rule (revised via the Airline Drinking Water Rule). Lead and Copper 

Rule, Arsenic Rule, Stage I Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, Surface Water Treatment 

Rule, beta particles and photon emitters, gross alpha particle activity, and Radium-2261228. 

6. On Manh 29, 2010, EPA 'published Its 6-year review oftbe drinking water regalation lor total 

chromium and stated, ''The Ageney doea Dot believe a rcvltlon to tbe NPDWR lor total 

chromium It appropriate at tbb time." Since EPA based tbe total ehromium drinking water 

Jtandard,ln large part, on a total bexavalent chromium level, wbat bas ehanged? 

RESPONSE: The current drinking water standard of 0.1 mg/L for total chromium includes all forms 

of chromium. This standard was established in 1991 based on the best science available at that time and 

was based on a toxic health endpoint (skin dermatitis) of hexavalent chromium. 

The EPA reviewed the total chromium NPDWR as part ofits second Six-Year Review in March 2010 

(75 FR 15499). The Six-Year Review conClusion staled that "The agency does not believe a revision to 

the NPDWR'for total chromium is appropriate at this time (because] reassessment of1he heal1h risks 

associated wi1h chromium exposure is being initiated and the agency does not believe it is appropriate to 

revise the NPDWR while that effort is in process." In September 2010, the EPA released a draft IRIS 

Toxicological Review for hexavalent chromium following oral exposure based on a review of the peerreviewed published scientific literature. The external peer review panel met in May 2011, and the final 

peer review report was posted on 1heEPA's website on July 21, 2011. The EPA isreviewing1he " 

external peer review report and is evaluating the peer review and public comments and incorporating 

1hem into the assessment. 

When this human heal1h assessment is finalized the EPA will carefully review 1he conclusions"and 

consider all relevant information to determine if the current standard should be revised and/or a new 

standard should be promulgated. 

7. Since the current National Drinking Water Standard for total ehromlum is 180 parts per 

billion and EPA estabUsbed tblt standard based upon a consideration of cbromlum 61 Is our US drinking water supply sare? 

RESPONSE: 

The United States enjoys one of the safest supplies of public drinking water in the world. The EPA's 

current drinkiog water standard for total chromium of 100 ppb assumes that 1he sample is 100 percent 

hexavalent chromiwn.1he more toxic form. and data reported to 1he EPa from the states shows that all 

water systems are in compliance with the current total chromium standard. This regulation \\'as based 
29 

un the best available science at the lime the standard was promulgated and so is as protective and 

precautiOIllll)' as the science has allowed. 

HowevC!r"tbe science about health effects ftom hexavalent chromium is evolving. The agency is in the 

process of deveJoplng a new health assessment for hexavalent chromium based on new science. Once 

the health assessment is finalized, the EPA will carefully review the conclusions and consider all 

relevant information to determloe if a new standard needs to be set in order 10 continue to ensure the 

safety of public water supplies. 

8. How much chromium 6 did you assume in the 100 parts per bUlIoD? 

RESPONSE: The EPA's regulation for total chromium assumes that all chromium in drinking water is 

hexavalent chromium. 

9. Are there any US drinJdDg water system. that are unsafe,because !If ehr.omi!l~,6, levels? 

RESPONSE: Data reported to the EPA fi1;IltI StBtes ~o~ th!lt ali water systemS are' in \=O~li8Dce with the current total chromium standard. 

10. In 2009, EPA indicated that It would publlah,lt. draft IRJS. ToxiCological R,eyiew for 

hexavalent chromium In 2812. I uD"erstancl that In Ztltl9, the Agency sdentists were aware of 

mode of acdon research that would extend the rel\earc:h performed at high chromium 6 doses 

by the Nadonal Toxicology Program and use more envlronmelltally-relevant closes as wdL 

Since this research wlll be available In 2011 and wUI provide the data .pecffied In EPA 

guidance documents, as EPA prelent ror the evaluadon or chcmieals ror reguladons, 

Ineludlng modellf acdon, pharmacoklneties, genomles, and tissue specffic concentrations at 

drlnklng water doses, wby·dld EPA move up the release of tbe draft IRIS Toxicological 

Review to 2010? 

, . . RESPONSE: The EPA initiated a reassessment of the health effects of hexavalent chromium in the 

fall of2008 in response to the release orthe National Toxicology Program (NTP) study that 

demonstrated clear evidence orthe carcinogenicity of!ngested hexavalent chromium in I~tory 

animals exposed at doses above five ppm. At that lime, the projected completion date was the fourth 

quarter, FY 2012. In May 2009, the EPA implemented a revised IRIS assessment development process, 

which accelerated the pace of completing assessments, Including the assessment ofhcxavalent 

chromium. Based.on the new process and agency needs, a revised schedule was generated In September 

2009, with a projected completion date of fourth quarter, FY 2010. When the EPA was informed that 

an industry-sponsored hexavalent chromium research program was under development, the IRIS 

Toxicological Review had already been drafted and was undergoing Step 2 (agency review) of the IRIS 

process .. 

11. WJdle I appreciate EPA'. sensklvlty to the Importance of acdng deUberately and In a timely 

manDer to address chromium 6 ID drtDldng water, J uDderatalld that In the expedited 

timeUne, EPA plans to'release its flualiRiS Toxicological Review ID tbe second quartcr of 

2011 before It conslden the mode of acCioD study results. Sbouldn't EPA consider tbl! results 

from this Important study In tbeir risk assessment rather than rnsh to ftDalizlng its 

assessment as crldeallnformatlon becomes available? 
30 

RESPONSE: TIle EPA is committed to ensuring that all of its IRIS human health assessments are 

based on the most cwrent and best available independently peer-reviewed published scientific . 

information. Because the scientific information available on any chemical continues to evolve over 

time, EPA cannot always postpone assessments to wait for ongoing research to be published especially 

when there is already a good database available. TIle draft IRIS Toxicological Review for hexavalent 

chromium, released in September 2010, is an assessment of the health effects of hexavalent chromium 

followinG oral exposure based on a review of the peer-reviewed published scientirlc literalUr!i. The 

external peer review panel met in May 2011. and the final peer review report was posted.onBPA's 

website on July 21, 2011. EPA is reviewing the external peer review report and is evaluating the peer 

review and public comments and incorporating them into the assessment 

U. Getting the scleDec right tbe fint time Is a blgh priority for our regulatory decisloD making 

proceu. Hexavaleat ebromlum In water at eoacentrations of more tba. 1 part per mDlfou 

(1,000 ppb) makes water tum yeDow. Additionally, it Is my understaudlag tbat tbe National 

Toxicology Program's Study used eoueentratiou of 5,000 ppb (low dose) to 18,000 ppb (high 

dose) In their rodent study. In tact, the cbromlum 6 levels la the drinking water of tbe NTP 

study was so concentrated tbat many animals had uoticeably reduced latake otwater. . 

a. As described in tbe EPA cancer guidelines, extrapolating results la animal studlessbould 

IdeaUy be based npon aD uaderstandlag of the modo(s) df action uDderiylng the . development of tumors la aa animal study. If additional studies provJdlag more 

information relative to modo of action were avaHable soon, sboulda't EPA coulder such 

Information In Its risk assessment? . 

RESPONSE: TIle EPA is committed to ensuring that all of its IRis human health assessments are 

based on the most current and best available independently peer-reviewed published scientific 

information. Because the scientific infonnation available on any chemical continues to evolve over 

time, the EPA C8Mot always postpone assessments to wait for ongoing research to be published 

especially when there is already a good database available. The draft IRIS Toxicological Review for 

hexavalent chromium, released in September 2010, is an assessment of the health effects of hexavalent 

chromium following oral exposure based on a review of the peer-reviewed published scientific 

literature. The extemai peer review panel met in May 2011; and the final peer review report was posted 

on the EPA's website on July 21, 201 t. The EPA is reviewing the external peer· review repon and is 

evaluating the peer review and public comments and incorporating tl)cm into the aSsessment. 

b. Slace EPA's own guidelines lcancer risk guldeUnC:'t mode 01 action glildeUnes, aild 

pbarmaeokinetic guldeUnes) indicate a prefereDee for data at doses closer to human 

exposures, wouldn't EPA's IRIS 'l.'oxlcowglcal RevIew be Improved Irlt lacluded 

intormatioD on low-dose exposure. to better extrapolate results from laboratory animals to 

human exposures? 

RESPONSE: Yes. TIle EPA does generally have a preference·for data at doses close to human 

exposure levels. 

Co WhOe I know that EPA scientists are aware of oDloiDg mode of action researcb at drinking 

water levels, are you aware tbat researeb OD low-dose exposures and mode of action Is 

underway? 
31 

RESPONSE: The EPA is aware of the following mode of action and pbannacokinetic research that is 

cwrently being conducted on hexavalent chromium (the list was provided by the American Chemistry 

Council); however, we are not aware of any ongoing rescan:h that would be similar to the chronic NTP 

study but al'lower levels of exposure to hexavalent chromium. . 

• Research on mouse genomics (manuscript to be submitted to joumaJ for consideration in midAugust 2011) 

• Researcb on ex vivo gastric fluid reduction (manuscript to be submitted to journal for 

consideration in mid-October 201 I) 

• Rodent physiologically based pharmacokinetlc modeling (manuscript to be submitted to joumsl 

for consideration in late October 201 I) 

• Human physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling (manuscript to be submitted to joumaJ 

for consideration in late November 2011). 

• Research on rate pathology and biochemistry and mouse comparison (manuscript to be submitted 

to journal for consideration in mid-AUgust 20 II ). 

• Research on rat genomics and mo~ comparison (manuscript to be submitted to journal for 

cotlsidCflllion in late September 2011) .;. .. 

• Research on in vitro toxicity studies (manuscript to be submitted to journal for consideration in 

mid-October 2011) 

• Research on in vivo target tissue genetic toxicity and mutation (manuscript to be submitted to 

journal for consideration in mid-November 2011) 

• Mode of actjon based on study results (manuscript to be submitted to journal for consideration in 

mid-November201J)' . 

• Risk assessment based on study results (manuscript to be submitted to journal for coJ:lSideration 

in lale November 2011) . 

The EPA is also aware of the following two papers that were recently published in the peer-reviewed literature: . 

Thompson, C.M .. L.C: Haws, M.A. Harris, N.M. Oatto, and D.M. Proctor. 2011. Application of the U.S. 

EPA Mode of Action Framework for Purposes of Guiding Future Research: A Case Study Involving the 

Oral Carcinogenicity of Hexavalent Chromium. Toxicol. Sci. (2011) 119(1): 20-40 first published online 

Oclober 14,2010 dol:10.1093Itoxscilkfq320 

Toxico) Sci. 20B JWl28 •. http://tQXSCi.oxfordjoumaJs.org/contentlearlyI2011106l281toxscl.kfr!64.long 

Thompson, C.M., D.M. 'Proctor; L.C. Haws, Hebert. S.D. Grimes, H.G. Shertzer, A.K Kopec, J.G. 

Hixon, T.R. Zacharewski. and M.A. Harris. 2011. Investigation of the Mode of A-clion Underlying the 

Tumorigenic Response Induced in B6C3Fl Mice Exposed Orally to Hexavalent Chromium. Toxicol 

Sci. 2011 June 28. KtTl64 first published online JWlc 28, 2011 doi:10.l093/toxscilkJi'l64 . 

http://toxs!:j,oxfordjoumals.org/contenVear!yI2011106l28/toxsci.kfrl64.full.odf+btmJ 

13. Why IsD't EPA using a formal ScieDce Advisory Board proceu for hexavalent cbromillm, 

including a formal mcetlDg of the SAD with public comment oppor11lDlty that is more 

appropriate for the peer review of a highly Influential risk assessment? 

RESPONSE: The IRIS Program utilizes several peer review options in achieving its goal of rigorous. 

independent external peer review ofits health assessments, including the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS), the EP Ns Science Advisory Board (SAB), and independent expert peer reviews. All peer 
32 

reviews include identical sleps in that they include a written public comment period. public meetings of 

the peer review panel with an opportunity for verbal public comment, and an opportunity for panelists to 

review public comments prior to the public meeting. The choice of pe~ review mechanism is made on a 

case-by-case basis and can be influenced by a number of factors. In the case of hexavalent ~mium, 

the EPA determined that an independent, expert external peer review was an appropriate option. 

14. Recent information reported by the CaUfornia Cancer Regist1'y from the area around tbe 

Hinkley, CA site, sbowed no Increased incldence rate of cancer in tbe population. In fact, ra'eJ 

were .tightly lower than the expected rateJ ror all caneen. Given the reported findings and the 

EWG report that sbowed potentially broad detection of hexavalent chromium in drinking 

water suppUes and the assumptions EPA bas made in Its draft IRIS TOxicoloiieal Review, are YOIl surprised that there I. Dot an Increased rate of Gt tumon In the US population? 

RESPONSE: The contribution of hexavalent chromium in drinking water to individual and populationlevel cancer risk requires a comprehensive analysis.that considers informati,on on variat,lon in chromium 

exposure over time and variation in other risk factors for specific types of 01 cancers. The California 

Cancer Registry data from the Hinkley, CA site unfortunately are not robust enough to allow the EPA to 

make any inferenCeJ regarding changes in GI-related cancers in the U.S. population associated with 

changes in chromium levels in drinking water. . 

15. How is ehromiam affected by the treatment tecbnologies used by systems? 

RESPONSE: ~exavalent chromium. the toxic form of chromium. is not removed by most 

technologies commonly in-place at water systems (e.g •• coagulation fil.tralion, lime softening, primary 

disinfection, and corrosion control). A water system needs to have a different lecJmology that can 

effectively remove hexavalent chromium. The first process option !s an ion excharige process, which bas 

a resin that chemically attaches hexavalent chromium when conlaminated watercqmes illto ~ntact with 

it. The ion exchange process is a proven technology and is much more cost etrecti~e than reverse . 

osmosis, which is a second process option. The reverse osmosis process uses a.meJ:l'lbrane that removes 

small particles like chromium effectively. A third process that cim. remoye hexavalent chromium is 

reduction-coagulatlon filtration. Reduction-coagulalion filtration differs from the commonly used 

coagulation filtration because it includes a Slep to chemically convert hexavalent chromium to, 

chromium-) before filtration. . . 

If chromium is occurring as chromium-) in source waters. instead of as hex;,v81ent chromi~ then 

some technologies that arc commonly used today (e.g., coagulation filtration or lime softening) can 

etrectively remove the chromium-3. If, however. both chromium-) and hexav81ent chromiwil are . 

present and no treatment technology is currently in-place. then water systems will need to add either an 

ion exchange, or membrane, or reduction-coagulation filtration technology to rel;liove them. 

16. EPA recently provided technical guldanee to the water utlUtles to monitor for cbl'9mium 6. 

Among the materials wa~ a modlfled test metbod. 

a. Are there a sufficient number of analytical laboratories across 'the US able to .nUably 

detect bexavalent chromium at trace levels - the very low parts pe,: trUHon? . 

RESPONSE: The EPA believes there i.re a sufficient nwil~ of anaIyticallab~ratories, though 

sufficient lab capacity is dependent upon the number of water systems that ultimately decide to 
33 

voluntarily conduct the monitoring and how soon they wish to have it completed.'"Tlir~uRh ~nt " 

discussions with some of the largest commercial drinking water laboratorieil, the BP A baS learned that 

each ofthesc laboratories has surplus capacity. The EPA also believes that lnliily Ikbs are t&jionding to 

market demand by beginning to offer this analysis. ' 

b. What type of quaUty assuranee program is EPA pinning to i~pl~meQ • .to .re that 

laboratorlu are reHably able to measureh~valeot dij;JDiJunt'; leie"'\)ltW~, 20 parts 

per trlJUon (0.02 ppb) and the EPA detectIOn level of oiie ppb In drlaklng water? 

RESPONSE: The monitoring guidance identifies modified EPA Method 218.6 as the suggested 

analytical procedure. Within this analytical method there are strict quality control requirements. detailed 

ia Section 9 of the method. Any laboratory supporting the analysis should meet those quality control 

requirements to report valid data. 

17. UtiUdes have raised coaeems with my omce about EPA's decisions ~ardlng tlie teehuleal 

assis'tauee to mouitor for chromium 6, including the lack of fully validated anaiydcal method, 

'inability for the agency to coBm and aselhe data generated and lack of explanadon:ofhow to 

commuuleate the healtb elfeets to the pUblic. Pleal/e explain EPA's decision making regarding 

the technieal assistance and how EPA Is responding to file coaeems raised by udUdes. 

RESPONSE: The EPA is working with state and local officials to better deterriUne how widespread 

and prevalent chromium-6 is in public drinking water systems. The agency evaluated the available peer 

reviewed analytical methods, consUlted with state drinking water administrators and issued guidance to 

water systems on how to test for and sample drinking water specifically for hexavalent chromium. This 

guidance provided recommendations on the location and frequency of sampling as well as the 

recommendedaDalytical Jiiethod for sampling. Th,e EPA continues to Work with state and local drinking 

water oflicials to develop F AQs ~ !!ddress technical aspects of sampling and the analytical method as 

well as recommended responses to consumer's questions about hexavalent chromium in drinking water 

Inforrilation !IIid guidance regarding hexavment chrOmium can be found on the EPA's web site at: 

http://water.e.PLgov/drinkJinfo/~oiniumlindex.ctin 

18. Is EPA considerlag using the UCMR process for tutlng for hexavalent chromium? 

RESPONSE: 'The UCMRJ was proposed on March 3. 2011. The EPA is requesting public comment 

on including hexavalent chromium within the UCMR monitoring program. The following text was 

published as part of !lie' preamble: 

The EPA has not included hexavalent chromium in the proposed list of chemicals for UCMR 3 

monitoring; however. the BP A is aware of potential coneerns about 'hexavalent chromium occurrence in 

public water supplies. The EPA thus requests comment on whether the agency should include 

hex8valent chromium as one of the 30 contaminants for UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring. The EPA has 

recently issued voluntary guidance to water systems on monitoring for hexavalent chromium; including 

recommendations regarding the use ofa modified version of EPA Method 218.6 for the analysis of 

samples and a reCommended reporting level of 0.06 ugIL (see 

http://water.epa.gov/drinkJinfo/ehromlwillguidance.cfm). If the EPA were to include hexavalent 

chromium in UCMR 3. the agency would incorporate it into Assessment Monitoring. Under this 

approach, the EPA would make hexavalent chromium monitoring mandatory for all large water systems 

and a subset of small systems; see also Section III.F.2 for further discussion of the Assessment 
34 

Monitoring approach. The EPA requests comments on what contaminant(s) should be removed from the 

Ust of30 UCMR 3 contaminants if hexavalent chromium were added. as well as comments regarding 

the recommended and alternative analyt,lcal method(s) and the appropriate reporting level..The EPA also 

requests comments on whether total chromium should also be measured concurrent with heXavalent 

chromium. Side-by-side measurements may provide valuable information on relalive occurrence and the 

utiUty oftota! chromium monitoring as a sun-ogate for hexavalent chromium. 

19. At the bearing, you and Linda Birnbaum had different assessments ot the ablU';' tor 

perchlorate to be naturally oceurriDg. Is Pen:hlorate naturally occurring or Is it strictly a man made chemical? 

RESPONSE:. I would like to correct my statement for the record. As I clarified in response to a 

question later in the hearing. perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical. 

Perchlorate is used to produce rocket fuel. fireworks, flares, and explosives. It can also be present as an 

impwity.in disinfectant (bleach) solutions or occur through application of some organic fertilizers. In 

addition to these antliropogenic sources, perchlorate can occur naturally in certain types of soil deposits 

and research has also indicated Ih.Bt perchlorate may form from some natural atmospheric processes. 

The follo~ng links to the EPA's press release and fact sheet on perchlorate clarifY that perchlorate is 

both naturally occurring and man-made: 

httn:llyosemjte.CJ!!bAAv/0paladmpress.ns£f! eSab I t 240SSOb28S2S78! tl:l042ed4Ol6348845793f4SCSd8S2 

S782b004d(lae!OpenDgcument 

hUp;/Iwater.eoa.SOyldrinklCAAtaminantslunre8UlatedIupload/factSheet PerchlorateDeterminatjon,pdf 

20. At the bearing, you said that between 5 and 17 ml!!lon people are exposed to pen:hlorate. How 

many of those people live In states with existing drinking water regulations for pen:hlorate? 

RESPONSE: The range of S to 17 million people exposed to perehiorate.in drinking ·water is based on 

analysis of occurrence data from the first Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule(UCMR 1). The 

high end of the range, 17 million, is the total population served by systems with any detection.of 

perchlorate above the Method Reporting Limit (MRL) of 41 ppb. The low end, five million. is adjusted 

to represent only the population estimated to be served by an individual sampling poi~t that bad 1\ . 

detection. That is, if a system only had a detection in one pan of its distribution system. the estimate of 

five million people only includes the estimated population served by that portion of the sYstem. 

California and Massachusetts are currently the only two states that regulate perc!tlor:aJe in drinking 

water. Based on UCMR data, the population in th~se states served by systems that bad any detection of 

perchlorate above 4 pph is nine million people. California hss a MCL of 6 ppb and Massachusetts hss a 

drinking water standard of2 ppb. In summary, a little more than half of the S to 17 million who may be 

exposed to perchlorate in drinking water live in the two stateS with perchlorate. standards. 

a. How many ara exposed at levels above 10 ppb? . RESPONSE: Nationally. there were from 1.4 million to 1.7 million people exposed to perchlorate in 

drinking water at levels above 10 ppb, based on data collected under the UCMR I. 

b. How many are exposed at levels between 10 ppb and (j ppb? 

RESPONSE: Nationally, there were from 2.1 million to 6.7 million people exposed to perchlorate in 

drinking water at levels between 10 and 6 pph, based on data collected under the UCMR I. 
35 

c. How many are exposed at levels between 6 ppb and 2ppb 

RESPONSE; There were !Tom 3.4 million to 8.2 million people nationally exposed to perchlorate in 

drinking water at, levels between 6 and 4 ppb. Note that the minimum reporting level (MRL) for 

perchlorate under UCMR I was 4 ppb so the agency's dataset does not reflect exposures below 4 pph. 

These population estimates of those being exposed to perchlorate were approximated using Public Water 

Systems (PWSs) with detections greater than or equal to 4 ppb and would likely be greater ifihe UCMR 

I MRL bad been lower than 4 ppb. 

21. What cost of compUanee data has EPA collected from the States that already regulate 

perchlorate? 

RESPONSE: California and Massachusetts are the only two states that have already regulated 

perchlorate in drinking water, with Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 6 ppb and 2 ppb, 

respeetively. California estimated in its 2004 proposed rule that the average annual cost increase would 

be onIy'about $18 per customer for those served by larger Water systems (roughly a half a million 

customers). However, for about 1700 affected people served by smaJI systems. the annual cost increase 

per service connection would range !Tom $300 to $1580 with an average of'S540. The following table 

(available at: httP:Hwww.cdph.ca.gov/seryiceslDPOPP/regslPageslR-l6:Q4. 

Pen;hlomteinDrinlsingWater.Mpx) provides a summary of estimated total annUal costs'and benefits for a 

proposed MCL (6 ppb) by system size. 

System Ongoing monllorlag for sourees Sources III Violation Average size ND 8l1li < MCLor6Dpb Total COlt per Tolal 

Annualized Quarterly for Total Annualized Suuree and Annual System Population Routine detections Treatment & O&M TrtdWtr Costs for with Avoiding :s,MCL costs MonitOring Systems> Treated Exposure MCL SuaReS 

'saurees 51000 # sourees sumo # sounes SIOOO SIOOO 51000 51000 # 

SmaU 6493 216 118 41.5 12 250 16.9 267 23.5 1.100 

LaNe 5153 176 93 32.7 85 23.800 119.9 23920 698.5 514300 

Totals 11646 392 211 14.2 97 240S0 136.8 24181 515.100 

22. How many systems have been granted varlanees by the states that already regulate 

perchlorate? 

RESPONSE: No systems have been granted variances in either California or Massachusetts, the only 

two states that alre!uIy regulate perchlorate in drinking water. 

23. What new scientific Information did you receive between April 2010 and September 2010 .bat 

lead you to change the Agency's pOSition on the potential for health risk reduction for 

perchlorate through development of a MeL? 

RESPONSE: In neither April 20 I 0 nor September 201 0 did the agency make any determination on the 

regulatory opportunity for health risk reduction through a national primary drinking water regulation for 

perchlorate; The determination process was ongoing at those times and all available information was 

under consideration. In October 2008, the EPA published a preliminary regulatory determination not to 

regulate perchlorate in drinking water (73 FR 60262). In this preliminary determination, the EPA had 

derived a single health reference level (HRL) of 15 Ilg/L based upon the reference dose (RiD), an estimate of perchlorate exposure ITom food for pregnant women, traditional adult body weight (70 kg) 
36 

and drinking water consumption (2 Uday) values. This single HRL was derived to reflect exposure to a 

pregnant woman and her fetus, which the National Research COlDlcii (NRC) identified as "the most 

sensitive po~ulation." 

In August 2009, the EPA published the Perchlorate Supplemental Request for Comments (74 FR 41883) 

requesting comment on additional approaches to analyzing data related to the EPA's perchlorate 

regulatory determination. These additional comments were sought in an effort to ensure consideration of 

all potential options for evaluating whether there is a meaningful opportunity for human health risk 

reduction of perchlorate through a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR). Since the 

NRC identified infants and developing children as additional sensitive life stages, the EPA derived 

potential alternative HRLs for 14 life stages (age groups) using the RID and lifo staie speciific exposure 

information. These HRLs range from from I "gIL to 47 "gIL and are the concentrations of perchlorate 

in drinking water that may result in total perchlorate exposures (from food and water) greater than the 

RID for individuals at each life stage. 

For the purposes orthe EPA's recently published determination to regulate perehlorate (76 FR 7762), 

the EPA consideted·these polel)ti~ altemativ~ HRLs to be levels of public. health concern for purposes 

or the determination:· The EPA made tl!is<letC!flllination by comparing th~se values to the best available 

data on the occurrence of perchlprate in. public water systems. Given the range of potential a1temative 

HRLs. the EPA reversed its October 2008 preliminary determination not to regulate perchlorate in 

drinking water. The EPA carefully reviewed and considered input from almost 39,000 public comments 

on the May 2007, October 2008, and August 2009 notices, in making its determination to regulate 

perchlorate in'drinking water. The response to co1J!lllent document can be folDld at; , 

http://www.regulations.govll#ldocumentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW.2009-,0297-0681. 

24. Please provide Ch4! commlttee,wlth a fuU Ust of sclentlfie reports tbat tbe Agency bas jeJjed OD 

to make tbe decision that a percblorate MeL will present a meaningful opportunlty 'for bealth 

risk reductions for persons •. erved by pubUe w.~er systems. ,. 

RESPONSE: The seientific reports and public oomme.nts on which the EPA based its regulatory 

determination are available in the docket for the action. These mateiials can be acCessed 'through the 

WWW,regulatious,govunderDocket 10 numbers EPA-HQ-OW.2008-06~2 and EPA-HQ-OW-2p09-

0297. All docwnents in these dockets are listed on the !rttpjllwww,ieguiations.aovWeb site. Although 

listed in' the index, some information is not· publicly available, e.g., Contidential Business' Information or 

other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other matc;rial. sileh as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet, but will be publicly available in hard copy form: 

25. You stated In your testimony tbat perchlorate may disrupt tbe normal growth aDd 

development of cbUdren 10 the womb. Do you have studies tbat .how percblorate Is, hl!m.g this 

effect and If so, will you provide ~bem? . 

RESPONSE: 

We are not aware of any studies to date that positively show peichlorate directly di!lrupts specific 

parameters of normal physical growth and development (such as neonatal birlh 'weight, length, and head 

circumference) of children in the womb. 
37 

However, studies show that perchlorate can interfere with the nonnal functioning of the thyroid gland by 

inhibiting the transport of iodide to the thyroid, resulting in a deficiency of iodide in the thyroid (NRC, 

200S). The EPA's determination to regulate perchlorate is based on this health effect of iodide uptake 

inhibition to the thyroid. The transfer of iodide from the blood into the thyroid is an essential step in the 

synthesis of thyroid hormones, which play an important role in the regulation of metabolic processes 

throughout the body and are also critieal to developing fetuses and infants, especially with respect to 

brain development (NRC, 200S). Because the deVeloping fetus depends on an adequate supply of 

maternal thyroid hormone for its central nervous system development during the first and second 

trimester of pregnancy, iodide uptake inhibition from perchlorate exposure has been identified as a 

concern in connection with increasing risk ofneurodevelopmental impairment in fetuses of hypothyroid 

mothers (NRC, 2005). Poor iodide uptake and subsequent impairment of the thyroid function in 

pregnant and lactating women have been linked to delayed development and decreased leaming 

capability in their infants and children (NRC, 200S). Additionally, deficiency during childhood reduces 

child growth and cognitive motor function (Zimmerman, 2009). 

26. The 200S National Researeh Counell Study on "Health Implications of Perchlorate IDgestion" 

dis,agreed with EPA's assessment tbat a transient ehange in serum thyroid bormone 

concentration was aD adverse health effect. What Is the adverse health effect that a perehlorate 

has aD human health? 

RESPONSE: The biochemical effect that perchlorate exposure has on human health results from a 

biochemical precursor event, specifically iodide uptake inhibition in the thyroid gland. This precursor 

effect precedes, and results in; the changes in serum thyroid hormone secretion that occurs at sufficiently 

high doses of perchlorate exposure. Over sufficient time, reduced production and relesse into the 

circulation of critical thyroid hormones can result in hypothyroidism and subsequent hypothyroidisminduced adverse health effeCts, including reduction in organ system metabolism (in individuals of any 

age) and abnormal fetal and child growth and development", The magnitude of this precursor effect 

may change based upon exposure to other chemical goitrogens that compete for the same sodium-iodide 

symporter as does perchlorate, such as nitrates and thlocyanates. 

Z7. You stated <lurillg the bearing that changes In thyroid production while a baby I.s rormlng tall 

have,bopacta, on their development. Are there any studies showing perchlorate at levels below 

O.007mglkglday, roughly the equivalent of 245 ppb In drinking water, tause changes in 

.hyrold-related horDione production and if so, will you provide tho.e? 

RESPONSE: 

Studies are usually designed to show associations between perchlorate levels and thyroid hormones; it is 

difficult to demonstrate causality. The Steinmaus et al. (20 I 0) study is based upon an ecologic study 

design. which is among the weakest types of observational epidemiologic study designs. Thus, although 

it can identify an association between perchlorate levels in drinking water supplies and elevated TSH 

values in individuals who may have been exposed to those supplies, it cannot be considered alone to 

provide evide~ce of causality. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the study design and its 

statistical power, as well as the fact that the TSH values are a biomarker of an effect but do not signify an Impact on health and/or development. 

U MlUer. MO; KM Crofton; DC Rico; RT Zoeller. Thyrold-dlsruptlng chemicals: Interpreting upstream biomarkers of advem 

outcomes, Environ Health Perspec\. 2009 Jul;117(7):1033-41. Epub 2009 Feb 12. 
38 

Steinmaus et al. (2010) examined the relationship between maternal drinking water perchlorate exposure 

during pregnancy to 24·hour or post 24-hour thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in newbonlS. 

They found a statistically significant increased adjusted prevalence odds ratio f9r high TSH serum 

concentrations (99.5 and 95 percentile) for the TSH sample collection age of24 hours or leSs period. For 

the upper 99.5th percentile (2511U/mL TSH. the primary congenital hypothyroidism screening level), in 

TSH samples collected from newborn infants within 24 hours of their birth, the prevalence odds ratio for 

an infant having a TSH level value equal to or greater then 2S I1tJ1mL was 1.53 (95% el: 1.24 to 1.89) 

(P < 0.0001) (N=102), comparing pregnant women from perchlorate exposed (>S",gIL) and unexposed 

(!S5I1g1L) communities. For the upper 95th percentile (1511U/mL TSH), hl TSH samples cotlected from 

newborn infants within 24 hours of their birth, the prevalence odds ratio for having 'a TSH level valile 

equal to or greater than 15 I1U/mL was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.16 to 1.31) (P <O.OOI)(N=1217). For hormone 

measurements taken after 24-hours, the odds ratio was not significant at the 99.9 percentile but was significant at the 95th percentile. In their analysis, mothers from communities with perehlorate 

concentrations greater then 5 "gIL (5ppb) were conSidered exposed and those with perchlorate levels < 5 

",gIL (S ppb) or without perchlorate measurements were considered unexposed. 

RefC!'CllCei Steinmaus C, Miller M. Smith A. ~O I O. Perchlorate in drinking water during pregnancy 

and neonatal thyroid hormone levels In·California. Joumal of Occupational Enviroiunental Medicine 

52: (\2) 1217-1224. 

28. How Ii perchlorate affeeted by the treatment technologies used by systems? 

RESPONSE: Most technologies commonly in place at water systems (e.g., conventional filtration, 

primary disinfection, and eorrosion control and iron and manganese removal) are not effective in 

removing perchlorate. A water system needs to have strong base ion exchange Illsin or 

nUTatclperchlorate selective resin or reverse osmosis technologies in-place to effectively rcmove 

perchlorate. Furthermore, it is necessary for systems using strong base ion exchange to optimize 

conditions to target perchlorate for its effective removal. ' 

29. Currently. EPA Is iavolved la a study of the relatioashlp between hydrauUc fracturing aad 

drlnkiag water. EPA'. draft study plaa will be before the Scieace Advlilory Board In a few 

weeks for pee .... revlew. What suggestionsaad ehaages ean be made'to the study design at this 

point? How wiD EPA proceed aOer the SAB eompletes Its review? . 

RESPONSE: The Science Advisory Board (SAB) met March 7-8, 2011 to begin their review of the 

EPA's draft plan to study the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.' 

They met again on May 19, May 26 and July S, 2011. At each meeting, they received comments from 

stakeholders and considered them as part of their deliberations. SAB is expected to provide their 

findings and recommendations to the EPA in a final repon In about four to six weeks. The EPA will 

consider their recommendations as we revise the draft study plan. The Administrator of the EPA will 

provide a letter to SAB containlng the EPA's response to SAB's recOmmendati~ The EPA will 

conduct research as described by th~ study plan. 

30.la September 2010, EPA voluntarily requested large volumes of laformation oa bydraullc 

fracturing from aine service companies. Wbat Is the statuI of this Information request? 

RESPONSE: The EPA is evaluating the information provided by the respondents. 

31. Prior to the heariDg. yoa announeed your 4edsloa to move forward aad develop one 

regulation for Volatlle Organic Compouad. (VOCs) as a group under your new drinkiag 
39 

water.strategy. How wW EPA ensure that each chemical meets the requirements for regulatiOD 

under)~p Safe DrlDJdDg Water Ad? 

RESPO~.SE; The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) 

be set as clpSe to the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLO) as feasible. Regulated carcinogenic 

VOCS baveMCLOs of zero. As part of the SDWA requirements, the EPA would revise the indiVidual 

MCLs for regulated VOCS based upon analytical or treatment feasibility, benefit-cost considerations, 

and the SDWA requirement to at least maintain or Improve public health protection with any revision. 

Berore developing a nat!onal primary drinking water regulation for unrcgulated VOCs, SDWA requires 

that the EPA determine whether: 1) the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of 

persons; 2) the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood the contaminant will 

occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels orpublic health concern; and 3) regulation 

of the contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reductions. for persons served by 

public water systems. If a positive determination is made, the EPA will develop MCLOs. and determine 

the feasibility. 

32. Which VOCs are EPA planning to include III this proposed regulatlou? 

RESPONSE: The agency is considering up to 16 compounds as part of the group regUJation; eight 

currently regulated compounds (benzene; ~n tetracplorige; 1 ,2-dichloroelhane; l,2-dichloropropane; 

dichloromc1hane; tetrachloroethylene; trichloroethylene; vinyl.chloride) and eight unregulated 

compowtds (aniline; benzyl chloride; 1.3-butadiene; l,l-dichloroethane; ni~; oxll'l!Jle methyl; 

l,2,3-trichloropropanc and ure.thane). 

33. Does Jl;PA have occurrence and. health· effects data for each of these VOCs? U not, how Is EPA 

planning to obtain data? 

RESP.oNSE; 1'hc.EPA bas occurrence ~d health data for the regulated VOCs and Is continuing to 

collect and evall!8te..pec~ and heald). effects data for the unregulated contaminants. The EPA will 

work with .Sf!I~, "!Ifer systems and other federal agencies to obtain illformation that can illform the 

agency's evaluation of these contaminants inaccordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

34. When .qoa EPA plan to involve the Science Advisory Board In the development of tbls 

approach to regula~g VOCs as a group? 

RESPONSE; The Science Advisory Board \\(III be involved during the IUle making process before the 

group VOC regulati!ll1 is proposed. 

35.1 beHeve the most important prong of the drinking water strategy you announced in March 

2010 is the second point, to foster development of new drinking water tech~ologies to address 

health risks posed by a broad array of contaminants. Please give me an npdate of what you 

have done in this area and how you are moving forward. 

RESPONSE: The Water Technology Innovation Cluster (WTIC), which Administrator Jackson 

announced in January 2011. helps address this second principle of the drinking water strategy. The 

WTIC will bring new technologies to markct by working with strategic partners, including the business 

and investment sectors, governments and universities to assess and promote the most viable technology 
40 

rcsean:h developments. The strategic partnerships within the WTIC can further accelerate the research, 

development. evaluation. and commercialization of these new and more sustainable water technologies. 

There are new funding opponunities coordinated with this elTon to address the challenges faced by 

small drinking water systems through research grants to institutions of higher education, not-for profit 

organiiations and state and local governmental units as well as through contracts to small businesses. 

This includes approximately S8 million through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program for 

grants to eligible organizations to identifY, develop and demonstrate novel and innovative treatment 

technologies and approaches for public drinking water systems. An approximate 53 miilion has been 

directed toward grants for innovative technologies to benefit small drinking water systems. Additionally, 

an approximate 55 million will be issued later this year for a National Center for Innovative Water 

Treatment Technology. The center will seek innovative technologies to treat priority groups of 

contaminants in drinking water and will facilitate the development and demonstration of these 

technologies. Additionally, there will be approximately 51.S million in contracts made available 

through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to support innovative water treatment 

technologies being developed by the private sector. Over 90 proposals were n=ceiveci from small 

businesses in rilspoDse to this funding opponunity. 

36. As you know, miny of our water utilities are tile number ODe users of electricity for the power 

compaDiis that serve'them. New treatment techDOlogies are often very energst intensive. What 

Is EPA doing to 'eniure tbat tbere are botb cost eft'ective' aDd energy ,officient treatment 

tecbnoleiies' avaliable to treatmentplaDts? 

RESPONSE: The EPA is commlted to bringing innovation to market that is sustainable with regards 

to energy and water usage. economic considerations and t:reatnient effectiveness. TO'this end, a 

sustainability-based protocol is wider development to evaluate the techncial' effectiveness and cost 

effectiveness of new and innovative drinking water treatment technologies. In collaboration' with the 

WTIC, the protocol will evaluate energy metrics along with other factors of'interest to wat~r utilities 

sueh as treatment effectiveness, capital costs, operational requirements, residual'disposal, and potential 

dislribution system impacts. Ultimately, this will be used by communities to identify the most 

appropriate technology for their circumstances. Given the importance of energy issues to the water 

industry, it is expected that the energy component will be of prime importance 

Additionally, the EPA is taking action to support sustainable Inftastructure and promote implementation 

at water utilities of energy conservations measures, energy performance benclunarking programs, and 

use of energy audits and tracking systems at water and wastewater treatment facilities. Recent and 

ongoing actions include websites, fact sheets and webinars as well as tools such as energy efficiency 

criteria for inclusion in sanitary surveys and an energy baseline assessment/audit tool. 

31. Does EPA coulder the eost to power treatment technologies or tbe potential carbon footpriD. 

wben assessing tile aft'ordabUity of a treatmeDt system? 

RESPONSE: Yes, the EPA considers the direct cost to power the drinking water treatment 

technologies including the cost of heating, air conditioning, ventilating and lighting buildings that water 

systems need to house the process equipment and chemical storage. The EPA includes these costs in its 

compliance costs estimates, which the EPA uses for determining the affordability of a treatment system. 

The EPA does not specifically assess the carbon footprint of these treatment systems. 
41 

38. When thl! omee of Pesticide Programs registers a pesticide do they consider environmental 

fate or Ute pesticide, Including water late? 

RESPONSE: Yes. Under the Federal ,nsecticlde, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the 

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs requms applicants seeking to register a new peslicide to provide 

extensive data on the environmental fate of the pestiCide. Among other types of required studies, the 

EPA requires laboratory studies of hydro los is, photodegradation in water, and degradation in water 

under aerobic and anlCl'Qbic conditions. In general terms, these studies measure how long a pesliclde 

will remain stable in water under different conditions and identifY any degradation products fonned. In 

addition, the EPA can require a field study of aquatic dissipation If data indicate the potential for aquatic 

exposure, for ~Ie because the pesticide is mobile, persistent. or bioaccumulative or if the peslicide 

is intended for application to water. The BPA uses data &om these and other studies, along with 

infonnalion on where and how the pesticide will be used, to develop estimates of potential exposures in 

different environmental compartments, including water bodies. 

39. At the hearing, ID response to a question from Senator Barrass~, you Implied that the 

consumption of drinking water contalDlng certain contalilinants can lead to autism ID chUdren. 

You said, "Our science may be good, but I don't bow bow yon price tbe abUl1y to try to 

forestall a cblld wbo may not get autism If the)' are not expo,Cd to ,conta ... ~ted water." This 

stateDJent b!lS caused a great deal of concern am~ng public water utiUlfes. Pleiise explain what 

you based this statement on and provide the commlUee with any data that EPA bas that 

demonstrates a connection between driDklng water contamination and autism. 

RESPONSE: Over the past decade, we have seen the reported prevalence of such aevelopmental 

disorders rise. The science is not evolved enough to explain the cause of the increase. While some 

recent studies suggest a possible association between environmental exposures and autism, data are 

limited and we do,not yet know the extCQt to which environmental contaminants may contribute to 

autism, if at all. The BPA will base our actions on the latest science to ensure that we are on the 

forefront of protecting Americans from thrests, when they do exist. 
42 

Senator Thomas R. Carner 

1. When can we expeet to see EPA's revised standard. for ehromiam 6, and what,enn our states be doing to prepare themselves for these new standards? 

RESPONSE: The draft IRIS Toxicological Review for hexavalent chromium, released In September 

2010, is an assessment of the heaJth effects of hexavalent chromiwn following oral expoSW'C based on a 

review 'of the peer-reviewed published scientific literature. The external peer review ))!II1cl met in May 

2011, and the tinal peer review report was posted on the EPA's website on July 21,201 I. EPA is 

reviewing the extemaJ peer review report and Is evaluating the peer review and public comments and 

incorporating them into the assessment. ' 

Finalizing this heaJth assessment is a critical step to assure a sound scientific and transparent basis for 

decision making. Once final, the EPA will carefully review the assessment and other relevant 

information 10 determine if a revised standard to address hexavalent cbromiwn is needed. If the decision 

is 10 revise our existing standard, developing a revised drinking water standard typicaJly takes between 

two to two and a hDlfyears to perform the necessary analyses and.consultations to propose revisions and 

then will take about two years to obtain public comment, evaluate comments, revise analyses and ' 

promulgate the tinal rule. 

The EPA encourages states to prePare themselves by working with their, public water systemS to conduct 

enhanced monitoring for cbromiwn-6 In addition to the monitoring they are already required to perform 

for total chromiwn. The EPA, believes that the enIIanced moniloring will enable public water sYstems 

(PWSs) to bener .inrorm'lheit consumers about the levels of c~mium-6 in their drinking water, 

determine the levels of chromiwn-6 in their distribution systems, and assess the degree to which existing 

trealment is affecting the levels of chromium-6. 

1. Nitrate contamination eontinues to be a concern In Delaware. Is EPA looking into or planning 

to look into diialdag contaminatinn Issues related to nitrate? Are there resources available to 

states to denl with nitrate ,contamination in drlnldnl water? 

RESPONSE: The degradation of drinking and environmental water quality associated with excess 

levels of nitrogen and phosphorus (commonly caJled "nutrients") in our nation's water continues to be a 

challenge for states across the U.S. The EPA is taking a nunlber of actions to address nutrient pollution. 

which Includes nitrate, and we are not just focusing on nutrient pollution's ecological impacts. We 

recognize the potential impacts of nutrient pollution on drinking water as well and are integrating that 

consideration into our work. . 

In August 2009, the State-EPA Nutrients IMovation Task Group (NItO) issued an ~'Urgent Call to 

Action," finding that nutrients si81lifICaritly affect diinking water supplies as well as recreational water 

quality and aquatic ,!lfe. To aeJdress issues of contamination and propose solutions for reducing nitrogen 

and phosphorus loading. the State-EPA NITO Report presents options {or new,lnnovative tools to 

improve control 'of nutrient pollution sources and discusses ways to more fully utili?e the tools that we 

have already. 

The EPA also works to support activities initiated by our Source Water Collaborative to address 

nutrients in sources of drinking water. The Collaborative is a coalition of23 organizations that work in 

partnership to promole protection of sources of drinking water. al national, state and local levels. In 
43 

March, they sponsored a forum co-hosted by the EPA and state organizations, including Delaware, 

about water quality in the Delaware River Basin, where nutrient management is a critical concern. The 

Collaborative has recently formed a steering committee to begin developing an action oriented agenda 

on nutrient pollution. 

States are in the front line in addressing nutrient pollution. In March, the EPA released a memorandum 

reaffirming the EPA's commitment to partnering with states and collaborating with stakeholders to 

make greater progress in accelerating the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous loading in our nation's 

waters and to protect our nation's drinking water. The "Recommended Elements of a State Framework" 

is a tool to guide ongoing collaboration between the EPA Regions and the states and synthesizes key 

principles that are guiding and have guided agency technical assistance. . 

3, How can the Federal government focus its efforts to Improve drinking water quality on 

poUutlon prevention? What kinds of tools and programs exist to prevent the poUutloa of 

drinking water and what Dew ones are needed? 

RESPONSE: The EPA strongly believes that the most efficient and cost effective way of improving 

drinking water is through pollution prevention. The EPA' s ~iutl>ry euthorities include importani tocls 

to prevent pollution of source water and we are cortunitted to using these effectively and also to 

coUaborate with our state partners and other stakeholders to achieve the goal of clean water, The EPA is 

using these authorities both to protect America's waters generally - which serve as America's drinking 

water sources - and to prevent pollution frOm entering our drinking water. 

The agency recently released CO!lling'Together for Clean Water, EPA's Strategy to Protect America's 

Waters, presenting a fraritework for how the EPA's national water program will implement the goals of 

the Clean Water Act to protect America's waters and address today's clean water challenges, • To 

develop this plan, the EPA brought together a diverse group of stakeholders and encouraged public 

participation, The document outlines Key Actions that the EPA is taking to increase protections for 

healthy waters, teslore degrided waters, reduce pollUtion from discrete sources, and enhance watershed 

resiliency. 'In' addition'to helping to protect our nation's lakes, rivers, and streams for aquatic life and 

recreation, these actions will also help prevent pollution of our nation's drinking water sources. The 

EPA recognizes the clear opportunities presented by ensuring integration across our clean water and 

drinking water efforts. 

Along with the Coming 'fogether for Clean Water strategy, the EPA also continues to advance the four 

key elements of our Drinking Water Strategy, One of the Strategy's four principles is to use the 

authoritieS of multiple statutes where appropriate to help protect drinking water. Under this effort, the 

drinklng water program and the toxies and pesticides programs are in the process of evaluating the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecti<:ide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FlFRA), and 

the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to identifY specific authorities that may be peI1inent 

to the goals of the drinking water strategy. The purpose of this eVliluation is to identifY opportunities for 

better protecting drinking water by limiting the occurrence of pesticides and toxic chemicals in drinking 

water sources, and by collecting, sharing, and assessing data on the potentiat occurrence and health 

effects of pesticides and toxic cbemicals in drinking water. The programs have Identirled key 

contaminants of common interest and are comparing review and regulatory schedules to identifY 

• CqmllIfl Tqgffhtr (or Clegn WDlg. EPA " Sirat".. tq Prgtecltfmertcg', Wqtm. Is availablul 

1mps:llblog.epa.gov/wllU!rfonJllllwp<onlenlfllploadsl2OIII04JComlngTogecher-roroClean-Waler-FlNAL.pdt 
44 

opportunities to collect shared information and are identifying potential co-occurrence, common treatment, and analytical methods for contaminants. 

The job of protecting national water quality can't be handled by the EPA alone, or even by the federal 

government alone. For success, this job requires a local focus and commitment to source water 

protection. One way the EPA works to encourage this Is through our Source Water Collaborative. a 

coalition of 23 organizations joined to promote protection of drinking water sources at national, state 

and local levels. The Collaborative members have agreed to share infonnation, develop 

recommendations together, and package and disseminate these recommendations to encourage actions 

that prevent contamination, promote development patterns and land use with limited IInatS to drinking 

water sources, and preserve the land needed to protect the quality of current and future sources of 

drinking water. 
45 

Senator FraDk R. Lautellberg 

1. A House. Investigation revealed this week that 011 and gas companies have been Injecting diesel 

fuel into the ground as part of their tracking operations. While the Safe DriDklDg Water Act 

exempts some 011 and gas activities, the law requires a permit for ulldergroulld Injection of 

colitamiDants like diesel fuel. Does EPA plan Co proseeuce the companies that have been 

iIljeeting diesel fuel underground without permits? 

RESPONSE: The EPA will take action to ensure that those who use diesel fuel in hydtaulic fracturing 

operations are doing so in compliance with the Underground Iqjection Control (VIC) requirements of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act. Whether the EPA will take enforeement action against companies that 

injeeted diesel fuel in past hydtaulic fracturing operations will depend on the particular facts and 

circumstanees of each case. That said, in order to protect the confidentiality of potential case 

developments and assure effective enforcement. the EPA cannot comment on potential enforcement 

investigations or responses. 

:z. Selentlsts have reported dlsturbillgly high numbers ofOsh with both male and female 

characterlsties and other reproductive problems that could be IiIlked to exposure to 

pharmaceuticals ill the water. At a 2009 hcariag, the head of EPA's water office told me that 

the ageaey was .tudylag at leaat eight pharmate1ltieab found in water. What has EPA dODe 

sinee 2G09 to address this issue? 

RESPONSE: The EPA is continuing its work to address pbannaceuticals and other contaminants of 

emerging concern in water. The EPA Is using a four·pronged approach aimed at improving science, 

imProving public understanding, identifYing pal1nersbip and stewardship opportunities, and taking 

regulatory action when appropriate. Most activities to date have been focused on efforts to increase our 

scientific knowledge regarding the presence of these compounds and to assist us in determining wbether 

their presence may cause adverse impacts in the aquatic environment. 

Prior to 2009, the agency took action to develop analytical methods for a number of pharmaceuticals in 

wastewater and biosolids. The EPA also initiated several occurrence studies, including exploratory 

studies of wastewater from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and offish tissue, and also a 

study of a number of pharmaceuticals in biosoUds from POTWs that was published in 2009. All of these 

studies are accessible from http://water.epa.gov/scit<<hlSWguidancelppcpljndex.clin. 

Since 2009. the EPA has worked to furtberexpand its knowledge of the extent to which these 

contaminants occur in the environment: 

• During 2008 and 2009. the EPA and state teams collected fisb and surface water samples from 

about ISO randomly selected urban river sites across the country as pan of the National Rivers 

and Streams Assessment program. Surface water samples are beini analyzed for 54 

pharmaceuticals. Fish fiIJets will be analyzed for more than 20 pbannaceuticals and IS personal care products In addition to fish tissue. the survey measures a wide variety of variables intended 

to characterize the chemica!, physical. and biological condition oftbe Nation's flowing waters. 

These include water chemistry. nutrients. chlorophyll-a, sediment enzymes, enterococci, pbysical 

habitat characteristics. and biological assessments including sampling ofperiphyton, benthic 

macroinvertebrates. and fisb community. Results are expected in 2012. Fisb tissue samples were 

collected at an additional 1 SO U.S. coastal sites in the Great Lakes in 20 I O. These samples are 
46 

currently being processed and will be analyzed for phannaceuticals as well as perfluorinated 

compounds, mcrcury, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and fatty acid content, with 

results of these analyses expected in 2013. 

• With a focus on keeping pharmaceuticals out of the water, the EPA studicd unused 

pharmaceutical disposal practices at health care facilities. This study was prompted by the 

concern lhat potentially large amounts of pharmaccuticals arc being flushed or. disposed of down 

the drain, ultimately ending up in rivers, streams and coastal waters. The agency hus drafted a 

guidance document of best management practices for health care facilities, which describes 

techniques for reducing or avoiding phannaceutical waste, practices for identifYing and 

managing types of unused phannaceuticnls, and applicable disposal regulations.9 The guidancc is 

designed to provide recommendations to hospitals, medical clinics, doctors' offices, long-tenn 

care facilities and veterinary facilities. The EPA expects that this document will help reduce the 

amollnt of pharmaceuticals that are discharged to water bodies. The agency plans to publish n 

final version of this document in·2011. 

• In August 2010, the EPA released the results of an extensive literature review of pubJislied 

studies of the effectiveness of vnrious treatment technologies for contaminants of emerging 

concern (CECs). The EPA reviewed over 400 articles that referenced treatment of CECs, about 

100 of which contained treatment information which was entered into a searchable database and 

mad.: available online. The EPA developed a report that compiles and summarizes the results 

reported by researchers in the last five years. The report discusses 16 of the over 200 CECs 

present in the database, and the average percent removals achieved by full-scale treatment 

systems that employ six of the more than 20 reported treatment technologies. 10 

• The EPA is working to expand its method for detecting pharmaceuticals and personnl care 

products (EPA Method 1694) by adding several pharmaceuticals to the list of chemicals for 

analysis. in addition, the EPA is working to develop a new method to detect hormones . 

• This draft guidance is available at hllp:llwlIIer.cpn.goviscitech/waslelech/guide/uploadlunuseddrafi.pdf. 

,. The literature scnrch database nnd rcpon slInlmarizinllthe effectiveness oftreatmenttcchnolollies is available at 

hltp;l/w;uer,cpa.gov/scitechfswgllidance/pPcIl/indcx.cfm. 
47 

Senator ShekioD Whitel!ope 

1. The C~teJ'S for Disease CODtrol has wamed that partial lead service liDe replacemmt may not 

lower lead levels Iu driDkiDg water, aDd may, at least temporarily, cause spikes iD water lead 

levels. This bas caused great CODcem Ia Provideaee, Rhode IsIaDd, which Is required to 

uDdertake partial lead service Uae replacemmt OD 7% of its service liDes every year. My 

uDderstaudlug Is that EPA is updating Its lead and copper mle.1s EPA plaDDlug to evaluate 

whether. the pregram Is redudag exposure? 

RESPONSE: Yes. The EPA plans to carefully consider the work of the EPA's Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) and the input provided by, stakeholder commmts as it prepares proposed revisions to the 

lead and copper rule. We expect a final report soon from the SAB that evaluates the study from the 

Centers for Disease Control and other studies that have examined tap water lead levels before and after 

partial lead service liDe replacements. The EPA has $0 sought stakeholder.inputon lead service liDe 

replacement issues, most recently at the November 4, 2010 stakeholder meeting and during 

environmental justice outreach on March 3, 2011. The EPA will consider the stakeholder comments and 

SAB's advice in its proposed rule revisions anticipated in spring 2012 •.. 

2. The Rhode Islaad Departmeat of Public Healtb·1s strapped (or. I'IIDdlag and unable to conduct 

" thorougb study of the effects of partial lead service DDe replacemeD~ to Previdence 

bouseholds. Could the Dew lead rule require testilll of bousebold drlakiug water aDd the blood 

lead levels of ~ldeDt ehlldren, botb before aud after partial lead service liDe replacements, to 

track whetber tb~.partlal replacemeDts are belplug or burtiug tbe Iitnation? 

RESPONSE: As part of its ovalualion of the lead service line replacement requirements, the EPA is 

examining, the requirements to p~orm water sampling following a replacement. The EPA is not 

considering ~1I\rln8 wa~~r systems to perform blood lead level testing of children in households where 

service lines hJtve been repla.eed. 

3. What other researcb Is belDg conducted, by the CDC or EPA, to determlue whether partial 

lead service line replacements are belplag to reduce lead expOlure? What resources are 

available to undertake this type of research? 

RESPONSE: The EPA's Science Advisory Board is currently evalualing the effectiveness of partial 

lead service line replacements in reducing lead exposure. We expect a final SAB report lOon that wiD 

assess the currently available scienlific data and provide findings on whether partial lead service line 

replacements have been shown to reduce drinking water lead lovels. The SAB report may also include 

recommendations for additional research. The EPA does not currently have resources designated for 

future research of the effecliveness of partial lead service line replacement, but will evaluate the SAB 

recommendations once complete. The EPA and the American Water Works Research Foundation (now 

Water Research Foundation) jointly funded the 2008 report entitled "Contribution of Service Line and 

Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues." This report examined the 

effectiveness of both partial and fWllead service \lne replacement at a limited number of sites. There are several challenges associated with assessing the impact of partial lead service line replacement, 

including the need to conduct the sampling at private homes where the replacement has occumd, the 

large number of samples required to establish a profile for a particular site, and tracking how t~e lead 

profile changes over time at thltt panicular site. 
48 

Senator Johg 800zmaD 

1. My UIlderstandlng Is that EPA's assessment ofthe human health risks posed by exposure to 

hexavalent chromium may be driven by a failure to Identity research projects that eould 

help address data ppsln the database of existing ~eareh. Please address EPA's plans to 

eonslder data produeed by loon to be eompJeted .tiJdles that' are designed to determine the 

mode of aetlon and related health effects in laboratory animals to environmentally relevant 

dosages olhaavalent ehromlum In drinking water. 

RESPONSE: The EPA is eommitted to ensuring that all of its IRIS hlll'l,1llll heaJth assessments . .are 

based on the most current and best available independently peer-reviewed published scientific. 

information, Because the scientific information available on· any rhemical continues to evolve over time, the EPA cannot always postpone assessments to wait for ongoing research to be published 

especially when there is'~y a good database available. The draft IRIS Toxicological Review for 

hexavalent chromium,'released in September 2010, is an assessment of the hesJth effects of hexavalent 

chromium following oral exposure based on a review of the peer-reviewed published scientific ' 

literature, The external peer review panel met in May 2011, and the final peer review report was posted 

on.the EPA's website on July 21, 201 J. The EPA Is revieWiilg·the ektemal'peer:reView report' and is 

evaluating the peer review and public comments and incorpon\ting them into the'assessment' . '. 

2. Admmlstrator Jaekson, In developmg the Peer Review Plan for the tolleologleal review of 

hexavalent chromium, EPA initially plaeed the plan m the "highly mOuentlal" OMB 

category. At some pomt, EPA l;I.t0dlfied this ~Jasslficatlon to "lnftuendal," whleb will lead to 

a much weaker level 01 peer'review.'Please explam this decision in light of the potendal 

imp!let on drinkl~g,wate.r systems aerass the country. " . RESPONSE: 1bis is an incorrect asseru~n. The OM\l •• gory oi.~hi8Ny in~~tial" hps ~ways been used for the IRIS hexavalent chromium assessment 
49 

ENVIRONMENTAL PR0TEC110N AGENCY 

REGION VI 

IN THE MATI'ER OF: 

RANGE RESOURCES CORPORAll0N 

aDd 

RANGEPRODUcnON COMPANY 

Respoadanta. 

cre,xu DC ()poraIor I.D. No. 691703) 

,~ UudorSecdon 1431(a) of tho 

FedeIa1 S!6 Dibddua Water Act, 42 U.s.c. 

f 300(i)(a). 

) Docket Number: SDWA-06-2011-1208 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) EMERGENCY .mMINJJntATIVE 

) ORDER 

~ 

J 

) 

) 

) 

STATUTORY A1JTIIORITY 

The foUowiDa fiDdiDp are made and Order ia8ued UDder tho audlOrity vested iI'I the 

~8totof".UDitecl States BnvIroDmeatal JIrotectJqn AgeDC)' ('VA,,) pUlllllllt to die 

authDiityofSecd01l143hftheSal:b DdDJciI'Ig Wiler Act ("SDWA"or".Act"). 42 U.S.C. 

§300(l). . 

, SPA may Issue such Ordors upon recefptofil'lformatioia that commplnants are present iI'I 

or ate IiJcely to enter iID UIIlfeqpvwulaouroo ofcJriaJdlla water and may pRHDt an immiI'Ieut and 

subatantialeadaDprmeat to the health ofponlOlll. 8Dd BPA lias decenniI'IecI that appropriate State 

and local autbaritia bave DOIIakCIl sufticiClDt action to addnIsa the eudaDpaneIIl described 

hereiD aDd do DOt iDteDd to take such aodon at tills lime. as described In SectiOD 1431(.) of tho 

Act, 42 U.s.c. § 300(1)(a). 

The Adminiatrator delepted the authority to Issue this Order to the Resloual 

AdmiaIsIrator ofBPA Recfon 6. who fiJI1her delegated 8UCb authority to the Director of tile 

CompIIaDce A.ssunmc:e and Butbrcaisent Division. 

Federal Jaw provides that vioIadOD of any terms of this Order may subject Respoudeots to 

a clvIl peaaJty ofup to $16,SOO per day ofvlolation. uaessed by aD appropriaIe tJDItcd States 

DlstrfctCowt, uaderSDWA f 1431(b). 42 U.S.CO f3OOI(b), as mcdUJecI by the DebtCoUec:don 

Impnwomeat Act. 31 U.s.C. f 3701 and codiftecI at 40 a.a. § 19.4. 
50 

DockctNo. SDWA-06-l01o-1208 

Pa,,2 

FINDINGS O."'AcT 

I. Ranp Resources Corporatioo ("Rae") is a Fort Worth, TClC8S baed iJuIepedent aaturaI . pi company eupaed in the expJqsation. development .... acquisitiou c(pa:Qnarily 

1IIRUl'Bl'" properties in the SoutlrWestem and the AppalMhleri le8iona of tile UDited 

States. RRC is a Delaware corpcmdion with ita common stock listed and IrIded. 00 the 

New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "RRC .... . '. .... . 

2. Rango Production Company ("RPC') is a Whony.owaed subsidiary ofRBnP Resources 

CorpomtloD opcratiDg in the SlJ!te ofTexas. 

3. At aU timoi'relOVIlllt to abis Order, RRC and RPC (hereinafter ~owned or 

o,pemted the n~ IP" pro~ facUlties (collectively, "Oaa W~" iclel!~ftecl8S the 

BudetUDit W~ I-H('"ButJor \\loll'') (permiUt.dat Atwoocl,JB Surv.ey.AbstJac:t tI802, 

.' . Hood County, 660 teet ftom the N lIDo azul 986 filet fiom the SB line) and the Teal Unit 

We.D l-H ("Toal Well") (pormiued aq\twood, JB Survey, Abstrar.t1802. Hood~. 

703 feet &om NB line and 948 fi:Ct ftom 8B line). '. 

4. Respoadeota coDlraCfed for and directecl tho drillins of tho Buder Well in Juae2009 and 

completed hydIauIic fiacture stlmulatiOD opieJBtlODl in Auaust 2009. Gas productioo 

~ ftom the ButJor WeD In Aupst 2009. . : 

S. RespODdeata coalnCfed for and dUecaed tho driJliDaofthD Teal won ia Man:haad ApDl 

of2OO911ld comp~~ ~ stimulation operadoJIa In AprQ." Ga. .... jnoductioo be .. ~thD'ToaI Well in August 2009. 

6. = Tbe Trinit1.Aquliea' exists UDdetfwaty Texas coWltiea. lac,flld1ng Piuicer and Hood 

~ ~ (]@II Wells and tho pri., driaIciDg WIIm'.WOIIs deaibed ~are 

1. A£ set forth _~ly below, two~ ~ WIder Wl!lIs("Domts.lic Well ~~, 

'lad "DomestIc won 2"). located..., the Gas WeDs and utillziDathc:l'daIty. Aquifor, 

bilVe'beoD sIIoWlt to,CODtaia meIhaDe, bemI:ao, toluelllt. elbano,propaao,." hexane. 

Some oftheao ooMimlDants meat levels th8t maY eadaDaor the beal1h ofpmoos. 

a. 'Domestic wOn riles ~ 12O..t Inbmr.imlal,dlstnor:·to the eaiHo~ iom!the 1nIdc ofthc bodzdidal sec:lioliottbe BtlIler won bcR.' .. 

9. Domestic Well 21ies appJOXimaIely 470 filet IDhodzonIal dI .... to.thc southeast &om .. tbtnickotthe~~of~8,udor!eD,.~" . - .. - .-. 

to. Domestic Wells 1 and 2 provide cIrinIdQg Wlllierto aiDa peoptO ·bid" both'iduIts ancl 

ddlclma. 
51 

DooItet No. SDWA.Q6..20Jo..1208 

Pap 3 

J 1. Tho Gas Wells arethe~gasproductioa faoiJities within app1'OIdmatoIy2,OOO feet of 

Domcstfc WeUt 1 and 2: . 

11 DOIfulsdcWeD 1 (32!s6!n~'tafitude. -97.19144 JoDaitude)wuddDe(iDApit200Sand 

.' 'w.t-Immediatel), 

~: W:for .... hmaaa CODIIIIDpticm. buIJdiag COIIIIn1ctioD. '-~ t 

13. Neither the COIISUDleI'. DOl' tb* well cIriJIbIa service, Obierved or nportecI tbat the water 

&om Domestic won 1 ~~ IJP.1 D.OtiaoIIbI.~ PI at the_ o(its driUlDa. 

14. IaJateDocember2009.8p.PIOximaIel"fourlDODlhtafterihelGiUi·We1la~ProduciDa 

P,l.theowaerof~cW.eUl,~*tbat_""*,,M\bg.m1q,1l(t'erveace. 

15 ODJUlt26 201e;thodOwD.bOTd)~~~W~1~ .' _. - ' 

. 'Di~PfO~~~1&;i~ft.f~)'~'~~~~r:'focking." 

6. I '''Gas loCfdos"ialiCODditJob 8omeibde8~ln. do~ .,,' wben 

'1. dis801vcd gas is IeIeased fiom:a'OliatlOit "y 'the ~ OfihO 'PuiiP li!.~_ tho pump 

fiom~~. .', 

17. In additJon, onJuly 26, 2010, the pi In DomdtlcnVeJll was cte«Gfned to 6e fl~hJc. 

18. ,,' Oh;A;uatista:!zdIO.tJ:if~~ fbi...., aaq,les td'botakm ~,Domeatlo Weill. Tho simples 1Iho'wed'fJ1e jniieDCo ofbellfeao (3~1 PIlL). toJuene '(2.0 "aIL)' .df~~.~rMl.~ ~l~~ethano(l.s80 PJ!L). 

19; '. on·.~iIi1iseI1. 7Ol~. mciOOk Witer'sampliii fiom DouieSdc wen 1 t1l811110wed the 

presence ofberl.zeno (6.84 paIL) and toluene (6.J2 pgIL). 

20. '1bO'~iad wetlbWDCl'_v~ ~ WeD.l,~ servicecJuriDathofirsl 

'WeOtt if~bir20Ufaw#o_ ijaiai lila oontent. tIIodriJlldDa WBIorand 

., ~I. war qualify. ~1ioo1"'qualtiY azul poteDtfal expJosivlty. . 

21. BPAtoo"aamples9fthegasttomDolQesdo~elll ancl the Butler Well palducdon 

SIl'eIIb Oft dcWbcr'!6. 2010 to ~ composIti_ analysis aDd isotopic fiD&erprintias. . . 

22. 'l&otopfO ~ is a Dietbod tor~ the mtio ofdift'enmi iaotopes of. 

pardeular e1emcat III ao inveatigaIed mlllCriat UDderataDdlns this ratio IioIps scieDIisfs 

know the~ ... of.~ iDveatJpIccl material. 

23. Methene is a moleculo comprised ofone carbon atom for ever)' four hydrogen aIODIa. lIS 

chemical fonDuia is cs.. 
52 

Docbt No. SDWA-06-20IO-I208 

Pap 4 

24.. While tho carbon atoms ~ methane may be ebemici11y identical, they may hAve ditll!rcnt 

numbers ofneullol28 and di1l'izent atomic mass. Atoms of tho same element with 

dItfenmt atomic mass are known as isotopes. 

25.. The fsotop~c finlermint lUI81ysis ofmotbaneobtainodon October 26, 2010 itopl 

Domesdo Well 1 (aile - -47.05, &D - -18S,S) aiui the iBotopic finaeqx:lDtmalysis of ~producedps!omtbeBut1crandTea1Wella(3"c"'-46.Q).m-.I83.9) 

indfCldeS that both Pses are thermogeaic in origin IUId ~ to he fiom the ..me source. 

26. ,l'ha Jen:n,~opnio," when applied to a 811' IJkO me~ meaaa 1hat the PI fon:iied ,~thrc:luihdeep poJosio processes invoMna pres8IUO. beat ad time. The term fa used to 

distiDgu.tsh such sas !om biopnio pi, which i51brmed tbrov8h biological ~ 

27. ,The compositloDaJ analysis ofCbe P3 obtaiaed on October 26. 2010 shoWed that bot& 

• 'J8Se8 ccmtaIa aignlfioaDt amourrfll ofheavfer hydroca:bun c:omjxmeata aDd. that the 

':,~ podlon of.t'JIdl Plco~ tho t'IlIIIla oompotl8D1a. .1'bepteseace ottbese '~bonJ l\u:tber Id ... the pruodceofps in Dom6sdc wen lis likely Co be due 

to impactS fiOm gas deve10pmeDt aDd. productloa ~vities In th.e ... 

28. ~ Octo~ 26. 2010, EPA also coUecw.l samples ofwalel.' &om Comedic Welll tha( 

,.~thc~ofdfssolwdmethaue(20.IOO·i'sIL).ef11me(S.21:ttilLhpro_ 

. CZt820~). ~(4.55 P&'L). tolueU(3A7 pgIL),lUld belcane (3l.7l:'f1L). 

29. l'ha cbemicaJj'ib;smt In ~ Well I pose Il variet)' ~rtisks to health' ofperaons. 

30. MetbarIe Poses arlsk.or eXptoaloil and ftte. In largo cureatl8tl_ hiG. it may poae a 

risk of~ Natural methane. unlike tleatcd m.ethaae,. pumpec1 tb hoIlles tor 

cooIdq and headDg,,1s odorless and oalcIrlesa. Uaually a minute amomit of an ~~ 

such as t-hutyl memapt8ll Is,added to nIt1n1 SIS used by c:onsumtl8. ' 

31. ~ Ia a,Icnown:hWIpID c:enlirlopD.lt can allo cause aaemia. 8OUlO1oalcal ' 

f'mpakmeqt I11III othet:, adverse hea1th.Jmpaotr.. . 

32. Hexane, ptOpaDe. etJtaae aDd fl)luene may also cause adverse health fmpacts lfinhaled or inpIted. 

33. On November 16,2010. BPAadviaedtheCGnS"JlDCllofDomestic Weill tocontblllCllot 

IIIing tho ~ clue to watilrquallty an4 poteadal expIosIvit;y c:oucems. 

34. Domestic Weill (32.S6SOS.Iatitude, -91.:z9041IoDgitudo) Was drilled and' Compleflld in 

AUgust 2002I11III was immediately used ft)r hWl28ft col28UlDption 8IId 1audscItPe inipdon. 

35. Neither the owner, nor the weD drilling II8l'Vico company. obaemd'orapOdllid'ttiat1ho 

water fiom Domestic Well 2 contaiDccl any noticeablo natural PI at that time. 
53 

DoobtNo.SDWA-86-20JOo1208 

PapS 

36. ~!.fay 2010. tbo~l)fDomestlc Well 2 firstBoticed that the water had be&UD to 

~ 

37. On Aupst 26, 2010, the COIISUIII8I' C011Il'aCIed for water samples to be taIceD fiom 

.~ Y/eIl21. nc samples ahowed the presence of cHasolved meIbIme (10.9 JI8IL) • 

•• JW.A. sampIe,ct.tI!e WJItIIl' 60m Dome8do·WeJl2 On ~ 26. 2010. Raul. fiom this 

::..aptJ IhoWed.the pII88IfcC ofdissoMd medIaae (627 JI8IL). eduuie (38.5 paIL), ODd . pJOpipo ~;,O:SN'L) ... : . . 

.38. Ra.Ncwember33, 2010, BP.AtadvilJcd1be~ of.~\V~.20~ levels of ~ ... iD·dl.eMterIllld.that __ wi.'ffbOellle~·.""~towater 

quatity.aad.~ exp10siviay coitOemlL;. • . .. 

39.. EP,4..bq~tecl wiIh·1he appaopriatOcs. of'raas.:aba'lH iiUtIioritiei. includiD&1he 

R.orMI-CoJnmfasIon ofTexa,·the:1'exai ~bIi'on'~eat8J <I\iiIitY, and 

;.Jh9· .. ·~iflle·~1eadaltb~of'_'jmm.6.iidkhourceof 

. ~ water~ideDdfied below.- cIiIcl0lleCJ1lo JH*ilBal ~1IDt to the beaJth of pimoDs. . 

4i . ~ Wmd Commiuloo of'!J'_~C!') iafthe'stale agency with regulatory 

.i~CJYerJdl.IIIIIi~aadWpotoDtial~discussed 

~. BP:A_iDfPmukl~ 'l'RROoftbo eadaaPimeat 8IkJtIie prOpoaed JIIIWIDCe of 

ibli Order. EPA Ills IIhanId dalalllld ftDdJaprelaled to this matterwitbthe TRRC &ad 

,~~d:th.DRC on dulQCC1IIIicY of the fidbanaIiOD UpOii WhIch this Order is baIiecL EPA ilia ...... iDed that _.opll_ Stale ancIlocaJ 81JthodtIea haw DOt 

~ ~ __ tQ...tdQIastrae ~ desctibed belein'and do Dot inIend to 

~~ • .thfstfmi,. . . 

41. The ~ed haeIa may r;meut III Jmmineat and substaDiial . 

~ 

eadIDgenuent to the bealth ofper!lOlll because meIbaDe iD the levels tOund by EPA ere ccpJosive 01 fIammaIIle, arid benzene lfiDgeated oriDhaled could Cause 

caucer. anemia. ateurOloafcallmpairmeDt ami other adW1S8 health impacts. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

42. ~ melbaae,,40loebe, ethaRe andplopuall are "contamlmmts; .... that tenD is 

deftnedba·SDWA § 1401(6}. 42:U.S.C. § 3001(6) &ad 40 C.F.R. § 141.2. 

43. .1QI.o"tl:tDlty Aqulfbr lalli "ulIdeqpoWld SOUR:e of driDkIDrI waIct," as that 1am is defined 

.ai!11) ~;f.144.3. . 

44. The .CQJltamiDants·idOlllified htniD are present in the Trinity Aquifer. 
54 

Docbt No. SDWA.oWOlo-I208 , ... 6 

45. Respondents.., "pmon(s)." as defined by SecIII:?I1'I~1(2) oftbcAct. 42 U.S.c. 

§ 3OOf{12). . ' .. 

46. Respondents caused or contrib~ to tho endan~t I~~ ~., 

47. 'In accordance withSDWA § 1431(a). 42 U.S.C:§ 3OO1(a). BP'A ~ ~ted with , epptOf!rIate S1atund Iocill authori1ie's to confirm tho correctnbnbffbe iafOrmadon OIl 

which this action is baaed. ' 

48. ' EPA has cIetermiaed that that appropriate State'and loc8t alattiOriti .. have net. 

'aUft1deDtaiiion to'addreai'the ~ d_ribeCt'1lerein'inddo'~~ to 1ako 

auch action at this time. 

49. EPA has determined that this action is ~~, protect the ~~ ofper8(!DS. 

ORDERAND~PROVl8i~s 

50. Based OIl these findings and pursuant to tho authority, ofSlcdon'14:il(a) of the Act. 42 

U.S.C. § 300l(a), EPA Orders that Respoud6ntS" the tbU6Wtnti"tiC;ns: ' 

A) Within tweaty-four (24) hours ofreceiptoftbls 'OiiWer. ~_ shall notifY BPA 

in w.ridDg whether they iDtend to comply with tills ~._ 

B) Withintbrty-eigbt(48)boursof~OftbJa~;~,''''~'':'; ~paovJcle rep!acemeotpoCablewawavpplies fbrthe CODSWDCl'!t'ot. ~ Domostlc WoO 1 

and Domosdo Wen 2. . 

C) WIIbIn(48) ~hoW'SOfNceiptorthlsOiifer. ~_ ~ 

explosiviW meeera. 8pplOved by EPA, in the cIweUiDp aervecI by Domoattc 'wells t 

and 2-

D) Wlthinfive(S)·daysofuceiptoftbfso .. r;ReipoDdeiUsIhl1l:~~.Aa 

mrvey IlstiDg ad ideDdfyiDg the location de8Cripdon (latitthfo'iad 'I~) olall 

pri~ water wells within 3,000 feet ofabe BUtler \WIIbOre tiacit ami 3.000 feet of the 

T ... l -.eHbo", Clack ml all orllle Lake ~ AC;D'S (TX1, 1 ~095~) publlo water 

supx;ly &yIIem wells. This INbmiUll sball iidide a ,.'tbiEP'A" appnwal. to 

saaiplo tboso welfa fdeail6ed iD Onfer to detehtiDe ifBDy o(ChOai -.ltaw been 

ImpacteCi. TbIt pia IhaIl iDCIude head 8pIC8 (8It) aDd 'diaiiol~ ~ (water) 

samplhii. 'lJ!e head space sampllaallhaU C01IU1lCaco no ~ tb8ii five (5) days after ~ofthepla , 
55 

Docket No. SDWA-G6-2010-1208 

Pap 7 

B) WithiD tburteell (14) day. ofJeCelpt ottIUs Older. R.eapondeats shaIlaubmit to BP A, 

fbr appro~ a pJa 10 CODduclIOD aulUl'YOJS and indoor air coDCell1nltioo 8III1ym 

of tho psvperIies II1Id clwellfDp ecmd by Domeatio weUa II111d 2-

f) w& sixty ('0) days ofJeCOipt ortis Order Reapondenta sbaD devoIop. and submit 

to ~~ fo.r appoval. a pia 10: I) fdeadfy ps Sow pathwaJoI to 1he Trfaity Aquifer, 

2) e1imbIide ... t'Iow to '!he aquifer ifJlOllSl"Ie. and 3) mned!ato ... of tho eqaifer t1III have beeD impacted. 

51. Bach subalitlll made p\UIIUIIDt to W, Order ahaUlle. _ by U.S. anafI pr by certified, ~, ~reC8lpt'JeqUetIted to'tho ~,beiOw. Electronio IJU~~ w.iJI .• be iccepIDd. . 

:q.s.,,~ Regioo 6, . Water BotblCCmeDt BraDCb 

1445 Ross Ave.. Suite 1200 

DIIliu. ~:15202 ., AUD.: ChdSLiiIer. (6BN.WR) 

.F.q:(214)~~~ .' .~ lii1er'.ohria@eile.p.v 

1WJr-.I,c;c:.nm~ssimi ofTaxas "~oiiSectloD . WU1fam ThMa BuIlciiia TX7.I7Ql 

'BmilI:)"~1!S .' "p 

52. 8ach ~8hall include Nfenmce to tho dooket number as shown on 1he first page of , t1Us 0nIer. 

53. AU pleas. roporcs. nodc:es, or odulr doOWDelll8 submit1ed by Reapoudaals 'pursuant to thla 

Order. wJdch.1JI8ke 8DY~ ~RespoIIdeDIs' compUanoe or 

~~cowith 

~ 

lIlY ~eotofthiaOlder. shall be accompanied by the 

atatement slpecl by a nl8pOIIIible corporate omcer of the Respondenta: 

~ 

"I. certify U1Jderthe ~ of Jaw t1III thla cIoeum!mt and aD attachmenta were 

by me orU'niier my ~OD or supcnisioo in accordiq)co with asyatem ~giled to assure that qualified peI'IIOIIIlOI gaChenld and ~ the infOllD8tioo 

aybiDICted. Baaod csn my lnquhy ofaay aDd aU peno.os dhecdy nspolllible tor 

pd'airlDs and IIIIIlI)'Ziog the iDfimDadoo obtained. t certU)t that the .iDformatiOll 

coDl8lned in or accompanying ibis I'IlbmJtIBJ Is to the beat oflll1lmowledp and beli~ true. accurate. and complete. AI to those idemUied poJtiou(a) oflbls 

aubmfUaltbr wblch I CIIIIlOt per8O.IIIIJly verify tho accuracy. I certify that this 

submittal artd all attaclanenta were JH'Il8ft'Cllllat:eordanco with pracedures deslpod 
56 

DockeI No. SDWA-4l6-201c)'1208 

Pap 8 

to IIIIUfO 1hat qUallflocl perIIOIIIIOl'poporiy 8athered and .1Wlled thO' information 

submitted. Baaed on my inquiry ofthepeison or pontOnie' who manage the System. or thole cllNctly responsible for aatherift8 the' information, or thO Immediate supervisor 

of such peraon(s), tho fnlbnnatlon submitted Is, to tho best otmy knowfodae and 

belief, _ 8COUJ'IIe, amJ:complcte. I IlUIlWIN tha& there &r.l'sipiflcantjicmaldos for 

submitting lalse Information, Includln8tho poulbIlity offine and Imprlsonment for 

knowing vlolatlo .. " 

54. The COItification shall also include the name, title, date and signature of tho person or 

perscms compleliDg the cenitication. 

55. Respondents slWlaubmitto SPA and the.Stale ofTexas .. at tho addresses Usted in ~1IJ'!I&l1IPh 53, the results of Itt ~.tests. or other data pnerated p\lrSWllll to this 

0nIt:r by ~ or their apt.e.. coosuttants, or CODtnICtoi's. . 

56. ·If any mmt ctCIU'8 which causes delay in the achievement orany requkemeat of1bls 

~ 

Order, ~ts shall_Ie the burdlm of proving that the deJaywas.cauaed by 

beyoDd thoreuonabl0 r..outrol ofJteepoDdenmor.anyeutitycoatroUod by 

Rospo~ bJcluding but Dd. Umlted to their coatractms aod coDlUltanta. WIiioh could 

not haY!' ~ ~m. byduc diUgence. RespondeuIu shaI1 DOfity.BPA veaba1ly wlthlD 

12 baunI, t.r.4 in wridDg within 1 days oftM verbal DOtificatian.-oftM &mtio1pated length 

and C81IIIe oflho delay, tlte measures tak:DIlllDdlor,to.be fDkca to pmeut orUJinlrnJt» 

,the delay, and the _.fable by:which RIapoIIdeata hlteud to im,pIemeot dulse meaures. 

lfBPA &gnle8 that tho delay or anticipated delay lias been or will be ... by 

cIrcumstancos boyonCl the NUOubJo COJ1ttoI of tho Respondeata, the time for 

peri'()ItD8ltCO hereunder shall be exteJIded lbuperiod:equaI to tbc delay tr:sulttDg . 

ftom wch ciJ:cumstaDces. Respondents aball adopt all teII800Iibltlmeasures l{f avoid or 

mlnImlze delay. Failure ofRespondenla to comply with the notice ~ ofthls 

plll'8il8pb.shaII constitute a waiverofltespondeola' right to request an exteosicm to meet tlte~~this~. ' 

,51. Notbiag in this Order shall be cons1rwId. toUmit or odterwIae affect BPA's aathodty 

under 1lIIY applicable law or reguladcm Includias but not Hmked to EPA's aUthority to 

coadw:t inspccdolls. to _access to property, to n=quatthe provision oflDlbllll8licm, 

at to briJtg acivil or cdmiDaI oabcemoat actioa U1tdert1le Sate Drinfdq W .... Act or other I!PPIica'ble statutes or,nsguladons. 
57 

Docbt No. SDWA..Q6·201o.J2GB 

PIp 9 

58. 

59. 

60. 

61. 

~ 

Jtes.P.mdlml!! ma.Y u.aert. a~ claim coveriDgall or part ofaD)' iafotmation 

~ 

to EPA ~.to'thfli""'. ADy assertiOD qfccmftdeDtfatiCJ must be 

bY. ~ tiustsidsftea the items Jiitecl in 40 CPA § 2.204{e)(4) or 

.:'I!IiaU:~~Waived;~~byBPA lObeconftc1ladal ~.be ~.GDJy.~ ~=.r.teanpe$IiU11lIU~' 4OC.P.R. Part 2. lfaolUQb ~ __ OJaiDt \IIIIIOIlIP!Udes the Wormtdioa whoa it is IUbmJtted to EPA, 

the iatbrmation., be made available 10 ~ publlo by EPA wllhoutftlrtherDOlioe to 

ReIpoadords. EPA will not eceept Ill)' CODfideDtilIIit claim wltIl ..... to Ill)' phyafcal 

or aualjtlcal data.: . 

SPA, its coatmclors. omptoyees, and ropresoatativesae authorbecl to enter aDd ieoIy 

mtWeaboutall prOperty'at OiIsWeUa"'lO tld8-Qn1ep'*l1Jet~ Inter .. ~faciJitJ~-~· __ ·_~~loas. 

andCODtrlctsJelatld 10 thtJiIcIIity.~iJh\_et.~in 

canyfna out the .... ofdda Older; ccmcJuctiD& sucb testa, sampliD& or lIlOIIitolius 88 

'BPAOl'its Njrt\IiIeIIIlIIm deim DlCIIIlII '11ia1afa ."-.&lIIIh'OObtclllii·(j, other 

documou1aiy tIPe eq.IipiDQnl; 8DIJ'¥~.the""'~mtiDiJtteil \o:EPA by the .RIspqJi~ •• pODd.lInha11]iftMde~r_·Jts~l8tIIiiIi·tO the 

'fkciIity.all!ellllODtltletime .. ml~"~p.operiJ.fO'wliCb~"~for 

Jmp1cidltnta1J6nef_·Old8r.~liJadI:~ .. ·jJti:jJIilO=· anc11i' aII.~~~tiIocum ..... _~~ iDcbidiDlall .". :: 

~_1JIat)lerlain1D'WGrkUlldortakeaf'lil'*Uiutfb.thiJOMe1'aDdthldare 

',wlddD tbo,JI"'I'ICIIIifo Ol'Ulicler1lutCOdllOl.ol'~ or tbeir ~'Or COliIuJtaata;. 

Tbis·OnIer.I .. ~.upo11·.-eJpt and tdIl remain in etrcct UDdI SPA Pmvidcs !IOtice 

'oNfUII'",h"!fm INotice.wm .... ''8fte}' the ~0Dt8 of the Order have been 

aatfsfieCh 

lbiJ Order does !lOt CODIIftu1e a waiver. SUSJl8llllioa. ormodifioatiOD oftb zequirements 

of the Act or ImpICllDOlltiDa replations, whlch remain in fbli fOftlO and etfect. J8ItI8I1Ce 

oI.thW.OIder J8';llOhm election by :BPA td feteao Ill)' ciW'!ll' criminal iction 0ChCrWise 

.awIlabIO UDder·thO Act. 

BPA'~ reaorves aJ[.nsh1a d defenseS ~·it may h'ave, iJIcjJ~ but hot IimJted 

to the right to disapprove work pedbuned by Reipcqf.cJeotJ.JIW'S'IIlDl to thiJ Older 8DCl to 

modI1Y clocumCDII submitted by Reapoadeata8DCl xequIre that Respcmc1euta fmpI __ 

Ihose modificatIou. NothiDa in dda Older shall dimiDIah, impair. orolberwise Idwnely 

affect.the authority ofBPA to enforce the proviaIODS ofthl. Order. lbiJ Older sha111lOt 

be iDterprerecI 10 ",Uave Respondet:ItII oftheirobllptions to comply with any pIOviaIon of 

the Act, ita impJemcmdDl NpIadons. orany other federal, Itate, or Iooallaw. 
58 

DookItNo. SDWA.06-2010-1208 

Pap 10 

63. Failure to timely complete my requ!mnent of this Order abaU 110 deemed a violation of 

this Order.bogbmiDg on the first day that pedbnnaace is scheduled 10 commence. 

64. TbIs Order abaI1 DOt limit or olherwilo preclude EPA 80m takiDa IdditioDal enf'orceIQent 

'aCtiOn, civil or crimIDal;;purauant to the SDWA. o~ my o~ aVailljbI, legal iIudIority. 

abould EPA detennIu that 8IICh don is apptopMle. IssuJiacO otttiis Ordcii ,is not an 

elecdoll by EPA to fo.., any civil or crfmkiI:l action otherwise aUtho1i2ecl under the Act 

"or other laws. 

65. ·All acliima required to be taken pIIIIIIIDt to 1Ids Order lihaIJ 118 UllClertabaiD. acconfaace 

with the JeqUiremenIs of all applicable local. State. and federal laws and ~ons. 

66. Respondeata shall ob1aba or cauae theirrepnisemadves to obtain all penDi1s and approwls 

aeceasary IIIIdet sucb.lawliDd te __ 'tu perfOtm wulk pursuaat to this 0nIar and 

abaU nbmit timely applicatfOl1l &lid leClue&CI tbr my iuch permits and 8pplO'YIIa. Failure 

to obtain my IUICCIII8Il')' permits oriPProvais shall DOt c:omdtute pnmda for an extcDsion 

punIWUlt to ParasraPh 56 ofthfs Order. . 

67. TbIs Order may be modified or ameadecI by EPA to ensure protectioa of the heaItb of 

""J*IfODI. SUolilD iIDleacliMilt rIbaII bo'hi wrlttii& abaU haVe' as itSemiciiw'CfiiitbC"date 

on wbioIt It is received by ReapondeatI. aad ahaII be iaoorpcIndccl into this Order. 

68. If any provision or authority of this Order. or the appUC8Iioa ofthia Order to 811)' party or 

okcumataace.ls bold by Illy judicial or admhiIstraIive authority to bo ~ the 

appJicadon of noh proviskm(s) to other partiea or clrwmattnceaancl the zemahider of.the 

Order aball temain In fcm:e and ehaIl DOt be affected thereby. ' 

69. This Order shall bo biadiDg upon the Respoudeots cite4 herein and all their beira, 

8UQC088OIB, and IIII8Igaees. No cbaDao la owaeabIp of tile 1~ o.r ~ abaI1 aBer 

the retpOl1Iibilky ofChe RcspondetIIa UDderthia 0nJer. " 

70. Tbis Order coJl8titules flaal apaoy action for purpo!IeS of SDWA § 1448.042 U.S.C. §3GO}7. " ,,"". " 
59 

Docket No. SDWA..o6-2010-1208 

PapIJ 

OPPORTUNlTYTO CONFER WITH EPA 

71. ltespoudents have the ~ to conferinfbrmalbt with EPA concemfng the 1ImnS 

_applicability of this Order. Respcmden1Smust CODtact Tucker HeDBOD. Oftice of ~ona1 CouuseI, at (214) 66S-2718 within seven (7) days ofreceJpt of tis Order to 

schedule such a ccmference. Tbia conference Is not an evidentiary hearing. does not 

COIISIitu1e a proceeding to challeJlaethe Order, and does not give Respcmchmts a rlsht to 

seek pvlow of this Order. AIIy,such collf'crence with EPA will,be held at tbe.foUowiDs 

location: 

Director 

Compliance Assurance and 

BlIforcement DJvisioD 
60 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 8 

In the matter of : 

Murphy Exploration & Production Co., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., and ) 

Samson Hydrocarbons Co. 

Respondents. 

East Poplar Oil Field 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation 

Montana 

Proceedings under Section 1431 (a) of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. 

42 U.S.C. §300i{a) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Emergency Administrative Order 

Dockct No. SDWA-08-2011-__ 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY 

I. The following findings are made and order issued under the authority vested in 

the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Section 

1431(n) of the Safe Drinklng Water Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §300i(a). The 

authority to lake this nction has bccn pmperly deleguted to the undersigned EPA 

officials. 

2. Violation of nny term of this order may subject Respondents to a civil penalty of 

up to $16.500 for each day in which such violation occurs or failure to comply 

continues, pursuant to § 1431(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §300i(b). In addition. 

nctions or omissions which violate IIny requirements of the SDWA or its 

implcmenting regulations may sUbject Respondcnt~ to a civil penalty of not more 

East Poplar oilfield matler Page I of 45 
61 

than 532,soo per day per violation pursuant to § 1423 of the'Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§300h-2. 

3. Within 72 bours after receiving this order. each Respondent shaD notify EPA in 

writing whether it intends to comply with this order. Such notification shall be 

made to Nathan Wiser at the address identified in paragrapb 100 of this ordcr and 

to Mr. Wiser's email address: wiser.nathan@epa.gov. 

LOCATION 

4. This 'matter relates to lands within the exterior boundary of the Fort Peck Indian 

Reservation in Roosevelt County, Montana. and addresses groundwater 

contamination in and around thc East Poplar oilfield. which' field is approXimately 

five miles northeast of the City of Poplar. Montana. 

DESCRIPTION OF Rl£$PONDENTS 

S. Murpby Exploration & Production Company (Murphy) is a Delaware corporation 

doing business in the State of Montana and therefore is a "person" within the 

mcaningof40 C.F.R. §141.2and 1144.2 and Section J40l(l2) of the ACt. 42 

U.S.C. §30Of(l2). 

6. Pioneer Natural Resources USA. Inc. (Pioneer) is a Delaware corporation and 

therefore isa "person" within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 14U and § 144.2 and 

Section J 401 {I 2) ofthc'Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f(I2). 'Pioneer acquired the assets of 

Mesa Petroleum Co. Mesa Petroleum Co. did business in the State of Montana. 

7. Samson Investment Company is a Nevada corporation and therefore a "person" 

within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 141.2 and §144.2 rind Section 1401(12) of the 

Act. 42 U.S.C. 13OOf(12). Samson Hydrocarbons Company (Samson), a 

East Poplar 011 field matter Page 2 of 4S 
62 

subsidiary of Samson Investment Company, is n Delaware corporation nnd 

therefore is a "person" within the meaning of 40 CFR § 141.2 and § 144.2 and 

Section 1401(12) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 42 U.S.C. §300f(l2). By 1961, 

C.C. Thomas, an original oil operator on the East Poplar Oil Field, transferred the 

lease to producc oil from the "Huber" property to Emile A. Polumbus. Emilc A. 

Polumbus later formed the Polumbus Petroleum Corporation ("Polumbus"). 

Polumbus did business in the Stale of Montana. Polumbus later merged with 

W.R. Grace & Co. (a Connecticut corporation) to become Grace Petroleum 

Corporation in 1976. Grace Petroleu!D Corporation did bl,lsiness in the state of 

Montana. On or about January 21. 1993, Samson Investment Company acquired 

all issued and outstanding stock of Grace Petroleum Corporati~n and became that 

company's successor in interest. On or about thal same day, Samson Investment 

Comp.any chtmged the name of Grace Petroleum Corporation to Samson Natural 

Gas Company. Samson Natural Gus Company changed its name to SNG 

Production Company on or about April 19, 1993. On or about December 28, 

1994, SNG Production Company changed its nume to Samson. 

8. Respol;ldents did own nncllor operllte oil and gas production facilities, including 

but not limited to oil or gas production wells, produced brine disposal wells, 

secondary recovery injection wells, drilled and abandoned dry holes, production 

and wastc pits. storage tunks. oiVwater separators, and distribution pipelines and 

pumping facilities, in the East Poplnr Oil Field located within the following 

locutions: Township 28 North, Rnnge 51 East; Township 29 North. Range 50 

East; Township 29 North, Range 51 East, on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in 

East Poplar oilfield matter Page 3 of 45 
63 

Roosevelt County in the State of MORlana. 

USGS STUDY BACKGROUND 

9. This area in and around tbe Bast Poplar oil field has been studied by the United 

Slates Geological Survey (USGS). IUId its findings have been documented in peerreviewed studies published by the USGS. I Groundwater in the area has been 

detennined by the USGS to be contaminated with produced brine. In its 1997 

puDlication. lIle USGS mapped approxbnately 12.4 square miles of grobndwater 

contamination within its 21.6 square mile study area. Since then. recognizing the 

need to extend th~ study area, the USGS haS been mapping this groundwater 

contamination over an area greater than 100 square miles. The final report of diis 

larger area study is not yet available; but some provisiorial aspects of the report 

have been inade available. 

10. The USGS in 2009 and 2010 analyzed strontium isotopes and trace elements at its 

laboratory. 

11. Generally, provisional infonnation is considered by the USGS to be 'subject to 

revision because the data or data interpretation has not been subjected to the 

USGS's normal and customary peer-review process. The USGS coes nol 

consider the 2009 or 20 I 0 strontium isotope and trace element laboratory dala to 

be provisional, but it has not yet published its conclusions regarding the 

interpretation of the data. 

t 2. Of the approximately 150 groundwater monitoring well sites located among 38 

I Thamke, 1~ and Craig. S •• 1997. Saline-Waler Conlllmllllltion In Quatemnry Depos1Is and tba Poplar 

River. Bast Poplar Oil Field. Nonheastem Montana. u.s.a.s. Water-Resoun:es Investigation Rapon 97-

4000. 

Thamke. J.N .• and Mldllyal. K.S., 2003. Ground-Water QuaDl)' for Two Areas In the Pon Peck IlIdian 

Reservation. Nonheasaem Montana, 1993-2000. U.S.O.S. Water-Resoun:cs Investillllion Repon 03-4214. 

East Poplar oD field matter Page 4 of 45 
64 

square-mile sections in the area, the USGS provisionally considers 44 of them to 

be considerably contaminated (total dissolved solids above 9,640 mgll and 

chloride above 5,200 mgll) and nn additional 45 of them to be moderately 

contaminated (total dissolved solids above 1.170 mgll and chloride above 330 

mgll). 

13. This order is issued with EPA's understanding that the USGS plans to publish two 

additional reports: one on its oren-wide groundwater contllrnination rnapping 

effort covering more than 100 square I~iles. nnd one with its conclusions from its 

2009. and 20 J 0 strontium isotope lind trace eicmentanalysis 

14. Because EPA concludes the datil shows an imrninent and substantial 

endangerment to the City of Poplar's public wuter supply nnd to area residents 

drawing water from the aquifer it is issuing this order without waiting for the 

USGS to complete ils publication process. If the published USGS reports lend to 

different concI usions. EPA will consider them at that time. 

15. EPA also \ssue£ this order at this time to allow Respondents more Iirne to plan 

how to comply with the drinking water treatment and/or alternative water supply 

requirements of paragruphs 79 through 83, which may be more cost effective for 

said Respondents compared to issuing an order later requiring drinking water 

treatment and/or alternative watcr to be imrnediately supplied. 

EPA ADMINSTRA TIVE ORDER BACKGROUND 

16. EPA has issued rour previous Emergency Administrative Orders under §1431 of 

the Act for matters in and around the East Poplar oilfield. as described below. 

17. On September 30,1999. EPA issued an order to several Respondents. including 

East Poplar oilfield matter Page 5 of 45 
65 

Respondents Murphy and Pioneer. This order was amended on November S, 

1999, and November 30, 1999. As amended, the order required the provision of 

bottled drinking water to area residences and the production of records. This 

order bears docket number SDW A-8·99·68 (the cunent numbering convention for 

this docket would be SDWA.()8-1999-0068) and was appealed to the U.S. Tenth 

. Cireuit Court of Appeals. 

18. On August 16, 200), EPA issued an order to Respondent Pioneer. This order 

required Pioneer to ·properly plug and abandon a leaking oil well for which it had 

acquired liability, known as the Biere#I-22 well, which was known to be a 

source of on.going groundwater contamination. The order also required Pioneer 

to· monitor near the Biere #1·22 well to determine' whether the plugging and 

abandonment was successful. This order bears docket number SDWA-OB-2001-

0027 and was not appealed. 

19. On September 20, 200 I, EPA issued an order to several ReSpondents including 

Murphy, Pioneer and Samson. nus order was amended on October 3,2001. 

This order cited documentation of spills and past practices in the EaSt Poplar oil 

field. particularly the management of produced brine. which caUsed groundwater 

contamination. As amended, this order required Respondents to provide an 

alternate. whole-house supply of water to area residences and to monitor near the 

City·of Popbir to detect the leading edge of the groundwater plume to determine 

the risk to the City of Poplar Montana's public drinking water supply wells. This 

order bears docket number SDWA-08·2001-0033 and was appealed·to the U.S. 

Tenth Circuit Coon of Appeals. 

East Poplar 011 field matter Page60f 4S 
66 

20. On July 2Q, 2004, EPA issued a consensual order bearing docket number SDWA08-2004-0035, still in effect, to Respondents Murphy, Pioneer and Samson. This 

consensual order terminated those orders on appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals and required those Respondents to (a) construct a drinking water pipeline 

to several residences in the area, (b) monitor certain private water wells, (c) hold 

and participate in a public meeting, (d) continue to provide bottled drinking wlller 

to identified homesites until the newly-required drinking wlIIer pipeline delivers 

drinking woter to those homesites, (e) report monitoring information to EPA as it 

is cQllected, and (f) submit documents to EPA. The consensual order ~Iso 

requires Respondents to monitor II groundwater monitoring wells for the purpose 

of detecting contaminated groundwater getting close to the City of Poplar's public 

water supply wells. This groundwater monitoring program is referred to as the 

"Poplar Well Threat Study." 

~l. EPA's previous emergency orders expressed EPA's concern that this 

. contaminated groundwater mlly move in the direction of the City of Poplar's 

drinking water wells. 

22. Respondents have been conducting Ule required sllmpling at the 11 groundwater 

. monitoring wells in the POpJllf Well l1lJ'eat Study. The annunl report. 'I of Poplar 

Well Threat Study have identified thllt contamination in the groundwater is 

moving in the general direction of the City of Poplar. but the conclusions rellched 

in each Poplar Well Threat Siudy report do not indicate lhatlhe City is affected. 

23. There is now mixing of contamination into the City of Poplar's public water 

supply wells, which suggest the Poplar Well Threat Sludy failed to fulfill its 

East Poplar oil field mailer Page 7 of 45 
67 

objective of intercepting groundwater contamination before-it reached the City's 

wells. EPA suggests this fallure is caused by an inadequate mOnitoring well 

network and the type of monitoring being conducted to detect contamination. 

EPA also suggests that the groundwater movement between the contaminated 

groundwater plumes and the City of Poplar's public water supply wells is 

complex. 

24. The Poplar Well Threat Study monitOring program did not use strontium isotopes. 

a method EPA now understands to be more sensitive for detecting this type of 

groundwater contamination. -

FINDINGS OF FACT 

25. There exists groundwater contamination in the area alluvium and glacial till fi'om 

historic management of produced brine in and around the East Poplar oilfield. 

EPA's previous emergency administrative orders describe how this contamination 

occurred. In summary, the groundwater contamination resillted from 

Respondents managing produced brine in_unlined pits, Respondents' various 

spills of produced brine and crude oil, and produced brine and crude oil leaking at 

Respondent Pioneer's improperly plugged oil well. 

26. The glacial till and river valley alluvium constitute the only avallable source of 

drinking water in the general area, and the three public waler supply wells that 

service the City of Poplar's approximately 2,900 residents as well as area 

residents using private water wells derive their water from the same groundwater 

that Is contaminated further up-grudient. 

27. The peer-reviewed studies by the USOS described in paragrapb 9 include its 

East Poplar 011 Reid matter Page 8 of 4S 
68 

findings of groundwater contamination from oil field activities. 

28. There eltists a 15 squure mile area generally following lhe Poplar River which is 

located such thnt there are confirmed contaminated groundwater plumes present 

or up-gradient, while the City's wells are down-gradient, placing this area 

generally between the sources of contamination and the City's wells. This area is 

not presently fully characterized with regard 10 the presence of groundwater 

contamination. There are residents living in this same 15 square mile area 

drawing water from the same alluvium and glacial till aquifer via their private 

water wells. The 15 square mile area is described as follows. starting from north 

to south: 

In Tow!lship 29 North, Range 51 East: 

Section 31 

Section 32 

In Township 28 North, Range 51 East: 

Section 4 (WI2 nnd NEl4) 

Section 5 (En and SW/4) 

Scction 8 

Section 9 (WI2) 

Section 17 

Section 18 (EI2) 

Section 19 

Section 20 (WI2) 

Section 29 

Section 30 

Section 31 . 

Section 32 

In Township 28 North, Range 50 East: 

Section 25 (SE/4) 

Section 36 (El2) 

In Township 27 North. Range 50 East: 

Section I (S/2 and NEl4) 

In Township 27 North. Range 51 East: 

Scction 6. 

29. Groundwater in the East Poplar oilfield area was shown in 1999 lind 2000 at 

East Poplar 011 field matter Page 9 of 45 
69 

severallOC81ions to have benzene contamination. Replicate water well samples 

collected by the Fort Peck Office of Environmentai Protection (OEP) at one home 

site during this time span had respective benzene concentrations of 0.058 and 

0.078 mgll (S8 and 78 microgmms/liter). whiie samples'taken by the USOS at 

five other locations in the field had benzene concentrations between 0:0016 and 

0.0051 mgll (1.6 to 5.1 micrograms/liler). 

30. Groundwater in the East Poplar oilfield area was shown in 1999 and 2000 to have 

1 A·dichlorobenzene contamination. Samples collected by the OEP and the 

consulting firm MSE·HKM, Inc. during this time at eight different locations in the 

field had J.4-dichlorobenzene concentrations between 0.00056 and 0.00083 mg/l 

(0.56 to 0.83 micrograms/liter). 

31. Groundwater in the East Poplar oilfield area was shown'in 1999 and 2000 to have 

toluene contamination. Samples collected by the OEP and die consulting firm 

MSB-HKM, Inc. during this time at five locations in the field had toluene' 

concentrations between 0.00008 and 0.0028 mgll (0.08 to 2.8 micrograms/liter). 

32. Oroundwater in the East Poplar oilfield area was shown between 1992 and 2000 

to have elevated total dissolved solids concenttation. Samplcs collected by the 

USGS. OEP, and the consulting rarm MSE-HKM. Inc. during this time at 6S 

locations in the field had total dissolved solids concentrations above the 

secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL)2 (SOO mgll) including 22 above 

10.000 mgll and the highest 8167,000 mgll. 

33. Oroundwater in the East Poplar oilfield area was shown between 1982 and 2000 

to have elevated chloride concentration. Samples collected by the USOS,OEP, 

2 See nile 40 of the Code ofPederal Repbllions Pan 143 

East Poplar 011 field matter Pagc 10 of 4S 
70 

and the consulting firm MSE-HKM, Inc. during this time at411ocations in the 

field had chloride concentrations above the secondary MeL (250 mgll) including 

23 above 5,000 mgll and the highest at 67,000 mgtl. 

34. Groundwater in the East Poplar oilfield !lrea WllS shown between 1982 and 2000 

to have elevated sodium concentration. Samples collected by the USGS. OEP, 

and the consulting firm MSE·HKM. Inc. during this time at 56 locntions in the 

field had sodium concentrations above 250 mgll including 14 above 5,000 mgll 

and the highest at 43,000 mgt!. 

35. Groundwater in the East Poplar oil.field area was shown between 198~ and 2000 

to have elevated sulfate concentration. Samples collected by the USGS, OEP. and 

the consulting fum MSE·HKM. Inc. during this time at 52 locations in the field 

had sulfate concentrations above the secondary MeL (250 mgll) including 12 

above 1.000 mgll and the highest at 1,910 mgt!. Samples collected by the 

consulting firm PBS&J as recently as 2008 show sulfate concentration as high as 

2,150 mgll. 

36. Manganese is found in the groundwater throughout the East Poplar oilfield area. 

Its concentration in the sampled produced brine is between 0.062 and 0.130 mgtl. 

Manganese in drinking water above 0.30 mgll has adverse human health affects as 

described in paragraph 53. When the brine is in the presence of aquifer materials. 

such as shown in samples collected at monitoring wells showing high 

concentrations of dissolved solids, manganese values increase significantly. In 

2010, the USGS collected a sample showing a manganese concentration of 5.12 

mgll at monitoring well USGS 09·06, located within a groundwater 

East Poplar 011 field mailer Page II of 45 
71 

contamination plume, In t 982. the USGS collected a sample showing manganese 

concentrntion of 14 mgll at monitoring well W·16 (since renamed monitoring 

well USGS 92·11), also within a groundwater contamination plume. Manganese 

in the groundwater at concentrations above 0.30 mgll has been fnund at 33 

different locations in the field since 1982. This pattern is due to an incrcnse in 

water-rock interaction occuning in the presence of the high ionic strength brine in 

which the produccd brine contamination creates the secondary efrect of dissolving 

manganese into the groundwater, In samples collected in 2010 and an!llyted at 

the USGS Yucca Mountain Branch Laboratory, manganese concentrations 

enlering the three public water supply wells for the City of Poplar ranged from 

0.507 to 0.890 mgtl. Under current conditions,the City of Poplar's drinking 

water treatment system effectively removes manganese 10 below an endangering 

concentration. but it is unknown whether such treatment would remain effective if 

the manganese concentration entering the City's wells were' to rise as high as 14 

mgll, a value observed in contaminated groundwnter. 

37. There have been three different efforts made to estimate the time lapse before the 

groundwater contamination plumes in the East Poplar oilfield rea'ch the' City of 

Poplnr public supply wells. In March 2002, the Montann Department of 

Environmental Quality estimated a groundwater traveltime of approximately 3 

years (IIrriving in 2005) for a contamination plume to influence the source water 

for at least one of the Poplar public water supply wells. In March 2003, the 

consulting fiml Land and Waler Consulting, Inc .• whose name Int,er changed to 

PBS&J, under the direction of the Respondents Murphy. Samson and Pioneer, 

East Poplar,oll field malter Page 12 of 45 
72 

estimated a travel time of 109 years (arriving in 2112) for contamination influence 

on the Poplar public water supply wells. In September 2008, the consulting firm 

S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., under the direction of the OEP, conducted a 

modeling effort yielding several contaminanltravel time estimates based on 

different assumptions. The two flowpaths assumed included (I) contaminants 

flowing directly with groundwater movement to. the City's wells. and (2) 

contaminants flowing first into the Poplar River and then re-entering the 

groundwater and arriving at the City's wells. Using vur.ious inputs into the model, 

these two flowpaths resulted in a range of 3.5 yel!fS to more th!,n 200 years in the 

grQundwater-only scenario, and a range of 1.63 years to 49.5 years in the scenario 

with contaminants moving into the Poplar River and then to the City's wells. 

38. Water samples from the City of Poplar's Well #3 (COP·3) were collected by the 

OEP .on March 3, 2009 and May 28. 2009. These sample results showed chloride 

concentration increased at the COP-3 from 439 mg/I 011 March 3, 2009 to 782 

mgll on May 28, 2009, an increase of78%. 

39. To determine if the chloride in COP-3 originated from a contaminated 

groundwater plume, OEP convened a technical workgroup comprised of , 

representatives from OEP, Respondents, EPA, the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality and the USGS, and the workgroup agreed to the use of 

isotopic ratios and trace elements. The results of the trace element and isotopic 

investigation show that produced brine is found in the City of Poplar's public 

water supply, which accounts for the increllse in chloride, total dissolved solids 

and manganese concentration in COP-3. 

East Poplar on field maner Page 13 of 45 
73 

40. Samples collected in May, June and Augusl2009, and ill July 2010, by the OEP 

and the USGS were anulyzed at the USGS Yucca Mountain Project Branch 

laboratory in Lnkewood, Colorado. The samples were collected from all three of 

the City of Poplar's public water supply wells. as well as 14 groundwater 

monitoring wells from the glacial till and alluvium, one groundwater supply well 

from the judith River Fom1ntion, two surface water sllmples from the Poplar 

River. nnd two salt water disposal wells in the East Poplnr oilfield, disposing of 

produced brine. The nnnJyses included tests for trace metals in the slImples 

collected July 2010 and strontium isotopes in nil the snmples collected in 2009 

and 2010. The results of these sample unnlyses are summarized in Tubles 1 and 2. 

41. Strontium (Sr) is an nlkaline-eanh elcment that behaves, in geochemical and 

biological cycles observed in nature. in a manner similar to calcium. Sr is 

composed of four stable (nonradioactive) isotopes-_H4Sr. 86Sr. Il7Sr, and SISr. For 

nil practical purposes. the relative abundance of s4Sr. 86Sr. and ssSr are constant in 

nature, whereas somc of the 87Sr is created from the rudioactive decay of 

rubidium-87 (s7Rb) with a half-life of 48.8 billion ycars. 

42. In the past 20 years. strontium isotope ratios. expressed as 87Sr~6Sr. have been 

successfully used as nuturnltracersl 10 study groundwuter mixing. Because 

natuml fractionation of Sr is nonexistcnt or exceedingly small in the hydrologic 

environment, 87SrfuiSr vnlues of dissolved Sr are not being affected by 

temperature. pressure, 01' changes of water into steam or ice. However. 

J Shand. P., Darbyshire. D.P.F., Love. A.J .. and Edmund$. W.M .. 2009, Sr isotopes in nnlum! waters: 

Applications 10 source charncleri7.alion and wIlier-rock interactions in eontrusling landscnpes: Applied 

Geochemistry, v. 24, p. 574-586. 

Bnnner. Jay 1.. •• 2004. Radiogenic Isutopes: systcmlllic ullllllppliculions 10 ennh surraee processes nnd 

chcmicalslnlligraphy: Ennh·Science Reviews, v. 65. p. 141-194. 

East Poplar all field matter Page 14 of 4S 
74 

groundwater B1Srt6Sr values and Sr concentrnlions can be changed by mixing 

with other groundwater. The usc of Sr isotopes in conjunction with dissolved 

major and minor ions and trace metals is a way to understand and quantify the 

effects of mixing where there arc different groundwatcrs having chemically and 

isotopically distinct signatures, referred to as groundwllter "end members." 

43. In the East Poplnr oilfield, oil is produced mainly from the Charles Formation of 

the Mississippian-aged Madison Grollp. The Mississippian geologic time period 

was between 318 and 359 million years ago. From oldest to youngest, the 

Madison Group is composed of the Lodgepole Formation, the Mission Ctlnyon 

Formation, and the Charles Formation. The Mission Canyon and Charles 

Formations arc thick limestone tlnd dolomite rock formations. These rocks were 

formed lit the bouom of an ancient ocean. There have been different ocean Sr 

isotope ratios dating back into geologic time.4 Using n well-understood curve of 

the ocean Sr isotope ratio values through geologic time, the ocelln water 

incorporated during the deposition and burial of the sediments thai later became 

the Madison group, would likely have had Sr isotope ratios between 0.7080 and 

0.7083. 

44. Five samples were collected in 2009 allocations later repealed in 20 I 0 and were 

analyzed for Sr concentrations lind 87Sr/16Sr only: COP-I. COP-3, M-71. Huber 

50. and USGS06-11. Twenty-three samples collected in July 2010 from East 

Poplar oilfield included samples from 14 monitor wells. brine from two disposal 

wells and one water make-up well, two from the Poplar River, and four samples 

• McArthur. J.M., Howarth. R.J .. Bailey. T.R .. 2001. "Strontium Isotope Stnll1llruphy: LOWnsS Version 3: 

Besl Fit to the Marine Sr-Isotope Curve for 0·509 Mn and Accompanying Look-up Table for Deriving 

Numerical Age". in Journal ofOcology. vol. 109. p. 155-170. 

East Poplar oiltield matter PlIge 15 of 45 
75 

from the COP public water supply wells. These samples were analyzed by the 

USGS foJ' total dissolved solids, mlljor alld minor dissolved ions, trace metals, and 

Sr isotopes. The results of the 20 I 0 analyses are shown in Tnble I. Figure I is a 

map compiled by the USGS showing the sample locations. The map also shows 

other monitor well locations in the llrea. The colors on the mllp differentiate 

among highly contaminuted groundwater (red), modenttely contaminated 

groundwater (yellow), and uncontaminated groundwater (blue). 

45. Figure 2 is a representation of the total dissolved solids and montium values from 

the 2010 data, plotted at each sample location. The y-axis is logarithmic because 

of the large differences in measured values. There is II high correlation between 

these total dissolved soUds and strontium (the correlation coefficient for the 

results is 0.9825). As a result, for plolting purposes, strontium can be used as a 

surrogate for total dissolved solids. 

46. Figure 3 is a representation of 20 I 0 dala, plolting the reciprocal of the strontium 

concentration on the x-axis (in Umg) against B7Srt6Sr values on the y-axis. This 

type of plot demonstrates a linear mixing relationship between end members. S In 

Figure 3. high levels of groundwater contamination and the correlative increase in 

concentration of strontium plot to the left. Simple mixing between two 

groundWUlel' end members appears on this plot as 1\ straight line betwec.n euch end 

member. 

47. Spider diagrnms6 can be used for comparing major and trace clement 

) Gnure. Funler. lind Mensing. Teresa M •• 2005. I~otopcs: PrincipJe.~ lind Applicalions. 301 edition. Chop'lcr 

16. 

6 Wilson, Mnrjorie.1989.lgneolls PClrogencsis-A Globnl TeclDnic Approach: Unwin Hyman, London. p. 

19·21. 

East Poplar oil field matter Page 16 of 45 
76 

compositions of nny material including ground water. Beclluse of the lurge 

difference in concentrations of the different elements. ratios of the concentrations 

are usually displayed on a logarithmic plot. Figure 4 compares the ratios of key 

clements in COP-3 and COP·2 with those in COP-\' COP·I and COP-2 nrc very 

similar in their concentrations of elements so the plot of their loci of nllios 

approximates a straight 'line at a y.value of I. In contrast, COP·3 is depleted in 

sulfate but enriched in other major ions, especially chloride. bromide, and iodide. 

Such II pattern would develop by adding produced brine 10 wutcr represcnted by 

COP· I lind COP·2, because most produced brine is enriched ill chloride. bromide. 

and iodide. butl'elutively depleted in sulfate.1 Figure 4 also compares in similar 

fashion the highly contaminated groundwater from monitoring well MaC-II to 

COp· I t and a similar pattern is displayed. especially showing the relative 

depletion in sulfate in the MOC-II water compared to the chloride. bromide and 

iodide. 

48. On November 19. 201O,lhe OEP collected samples from the City ofPoplar's 

public water supply, and the samples were analyzed at lhc EPA Region 8 

laboratory for metals, anions. volatile organic compounds. 101al dissolved solids, 

alkalinity. pH, and electrical conductance using analytical methods prescribed for 

drinking water samples.8 Samples collected at the same time and at each sumple 

point were also sent to the USGS Yucca Mountain Project Branch laboratory in 

Lakewood, Colorado. The EPA Region 8 sample results are shown in Table 3. 

At the time the samples were collected. the pump at the COP·3 was broken. so 

1 Breit. George N .. and Skinner. Chris. 2002. Produced walers database: U.S. Depllflmcnt or the Interior. 

U.S. Geological Survey Oct 2006 modified 

S See Tille 40 of me Code of Federal Regulations. Pan 141 

East Poplar oil field matler Page 17 of 45 
77 

samples were collected solely from COP-l and COP-2. both before nnd afler 

drinking water treatment, and samples were also collected from the point nt which 

the blended public water supply enters the water distribution syslem for the City 

of Poplar. Another sample was collected from within the distribution system (i.e. 

from a lap receiving its wuter from the City of Poplar's public wuter). At each 

location sampled, a replicate sample was IIlso collected and analyzed .. 

49. Poplar's Verne E. Gibbs Health Center has a unit for administering dialysis to 

patients baving renal problems. To function properly, this dialysis method 

requires water containing nlimited amount of dissolved solids. Patients requiling 

dialysis ireutment have compromised kidneys and need the treatment to prevent 

build-up of uric acid in their bloodstream. Unabated, uric acid build-up in human 

bloodstrenm can lead to death. The Health Center relies on the City of Poplar 

public wnler supply for operation nnd uses a reverse osmosis water lremment 

system to purify the water used for dialysis. On July 27. 2009, during a period 

when COP-I was taken off-line and with the City supplying public water using an 

unusually high amount fraction from COP-3 containing its relatively higher 

concentration of dissolved solids, the purification capabilities of the reverse 

osmosis system were ovenvhelmed. This led to the shut down of the dialysis unil. 

50. The Tribal Water Resources Office (WRO) issues groundwater use pernlits on the 

Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The presence of the groundwater contamination in 

and around the EIISI Poplar oil field hus effectively prevented (he Tribal WRO 

from issuing at least two such permits in the lust three years, including one permit 

that would have supported a new public waler supply (PWS). 

EaSI Poplar 011 field matter Pllge 18 of 45 
78 

HEALTH EFFECTS OF CONTAMlNANI'S 

5 I. Benzene is a known human carcinogen. A causal relationship between benzene 

exposure and leukemia has been clearly established. EPA. in its consensus 

position on toxicological effects. the Integrated Risk Infonnation System 

("I~IS"). uses human occupational data to estimate the added risk of contracting 

cancer from exposure to beflzene. Epidemiologic studies and case studies provide 

clear evidence of a causal association between exposure to benzene and acute 

non lymphocytic leukemia and al5.0 suggest e~dence for chronic:.nonl,ymphocytic 

leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Other neoplastic conditions that are 

associated with an increased risk in humans are hematologic neoplasms. blood 

disorders such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia. Hodgldn's lymphoma, and 

myelodysplastic syndrome. These human data are supported by animal studies 

'Y~cb indicate that exposure to benzene increases the risk of cancer in multiple 

specic:s at multiple organ sites (hematopoietic. oral and nasal. liver, forestomach, 

preputial gland, lung. !)vary. and mammary gland). According to IRIS. dated 

JlUluary 2000, the consumption of drinkin~ water containing 0.078 mgll benzene 

is associated with an added risk of cancer of between 1 in 10.000 people and 1 in 

100,000 people. 

52. In 1999, EPA toxicologist Dr. Robert Benson stated that water with a TOS 

concentration in excess of 1.000 to 2,000 mgll is unpalatable and will not be 

voluntarily consumed by individuals. If an individual has no other source of 

water and is forced to consume .water with TOS levels over 10.000 mgll. the 

adverse health effects Include severe osmotic dimhea and severe dehydration. 

East Poplar 011 ReId matter Page 19 of 45 
79 

Continued consumption after the onset of the above conditions may result in 

death. 

53. There is a lifetime health advisory for manganese of 0.3 mgll and is based on 

prevention of neurological damage which can lend 10 lethargy, increased muscle 

tonus. tremor and mental disturbances. Death has been attributed to humans 

consuming drinking water with manganese at levels as high as 28 mg/\. 

54. The primary drinking watcr MCL for toluene is I mg/L. Toluene has advcrse 

effects on the nervous system. the liver. nnd the kidney. The health effccts of 

toluene arc summllrized lit http://www.epa,gov/ncealiris. 

55. The primary drinking water MCL for ethylbenzene is 0.7 mg/L. Ethylbenzenc 

hos odverse effects on the liver and kidney. The health effects of cthylbenzene 

arc summarized at hIlP:/Iwww.epa.gov/ncen/iris. 

56. The primary drinking water Mel for xylenes is 10 mg/l. Xylenes have adverse 

effects on the nervous system. The health effects of xylenes arc summarized at 

hUp:llwww.epa,gov/ncealiris. 

IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT FINDING 

57. Section 1431 of the Act allows EPA to take action. "upon receipt of information 

thm a contaminant which is present in or likely to enter a public waler system or 

an underground source of drinking water ... mny presentnn imminent and 

substantial endangerment tO,the health of persons." The action EPA may take 

"Illay include (but shall nol be limited lo) ... issuing such orders as may be 

necessary to protect lhe health of persons who arc or may be users of such system 

(including travelers), including orders requiring the provision of altemlllc water 

East Poplar oil field matter PlIge 20 of 45 
80 

supplies by persons who caused or contributed to the endangerment ..... 

58. Respondents eontuminllted groundwater in and around the East Poplar oilfield 

from their past practices munaging produced brine in unlined pits, various spills 

of produced brine and crude oil. and from produced brine and crude oil leaking at 

Respondent Pioneer's improperly plugged oil well. 

59. The groundwater eontumination in and around the East Poplar oilfield is located 

up-gradient of the City of Poplar's public water supply wells and has been shown 

to contain total dissolved solids at levels up to 91.100 mg/I. chloride at levels up 

to 58,000 mg/I, sodium at levels up to 43.000 mg/I, sulfllie at levels up to 2.150 

mgll. manganese lltlevels up to 14 mg/I, benzene at levels up to 0.078 mg/l. 

ethylbenzene at levels up to 0.0052 mg/l. toluene at levels up to 0.0028 mg/I. and 

xylenes at levels up to 0.0021 mg/1. 

60. Every estimate of the movement of the East Poplar oilfield groundwater 

contamination plume(s) hilS concluded that such plume(s) will rellch the City of 

Poplar's public water supply wells. 

61. Th~ 2009 and 20 I 0 USGS Sr isotope and trace element dlltll as plotted in Figure 3 

illustrates the following conclusions: 

a. A nearly horizontal array of data points (the main trend) displays 

mixing between samples uninfluenced by eonlamination on the right 

(colored blue) nnd highly contaminated snmples on the left (colored red). 

and 

b. The samples from the COP wells plot al inlemlediale positions on the 

main trend. Also. there is a distinct difference between the COP-3 and the 

East Poplar oilfield matter Page 21 of 45 
81 

other two COP wells (COP-I and COP·2). This menns Ihe COP well 

wnter is a mixture between the groundwlIler end members and is 

influenccd by contamination, espccinlly COP·:; which plots further to the 

left. 

62. The spider diagram figurc 4 showing relativc concentrations of trace elements is 

further evidence Ihut produccd brine is mbdng particularly into the COP-3 well. 

63. The data expresscd in Figures I • 4 indicates that the City of Poplar's water 

supply is now mixing with produced brine found in groundwater contamination 

areas in and around the East Poplar oilfield. 

64. Because the up·gradient contamination is now mixing with the City's wclls. the 

contamination may be nowing through a IS square milc urcn located in an 

intermediate position where residcnls lire druwing their drinking water from the 

same alluvium and glacial til! aquifer. nnd thc contamination may be cntering 

these residents' privatc water wclls. 

65. Humans who drink water containing the constituents at the concentrations 

described in paragraph 59 will suffer adverse health effects Ihat could Icad to 

death. 

66. The entry of produced brine into the City of Poplar's water supply represents an 

imminent and substantial endangerment to the people drinking the wuler. 

67. The entry of produced brine inlo Ihc City of Poplar's watcr supply during n period 

when COP·3 wns contributing relntivcly higher amounts or supplied watcr caused 

the waler purification system lIllhc Vern E. Gibbs HCtllth Ccnter dialysis center to 

cea~e functioning and Icd to the shut down of dhllYllis treatmcnt: 

East Poplar oil field matter Page 22 of 45 
82 

68. The Tribes' inability to issue groundwater usc permits due to the presence of the 

groundwater contamination in and around the East Poplnr oil field, including one 

pemlit that would have supported a new PWS, ha~ effectively precluded the use 

of this aquifer as a drinking watcr resourcc. 

69. No other appropriate governmental agency has taken the actions necessary to 

protect the health of persons whose source of drinking water is the contaminated 

aq \li fer. 

70. EPA has determined that this action is necessary to protect the health of persons. 

ORDER 

71. Based.on these findings and pursuant to the authority of Section )431(a) of the 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300i(a), EPA orders that Respondents, in summary, take the 

foHowing actions. Respondents shall (It) collect monthly samples at the City of 

Poplnr's public water supply for analysis to detect impending contamination. (b) 

upon homeowner's request, collect monthly samples from homeowner's private 

wa~er wells to detect impending contamination, (c) if triggered by an action level, 

provide treated or alternate drinking water to the City of Poplar, (d) if triggered by 

an action level. provide bottled water to affected homeowners. and (e) submit to 

EPA a plan for studying aquifer remediation options. The detailed actions are set 

forth below. 

Sample and Analyze the Poplar Public Water Supply 

72. On or after the effective date of this order, Respondents shall arrange to collect 

samples from the City of Poplar's public drinking water supply. Samples shall 

be collected. al a minimum, at the frequency shown in Table 4 and shall be 

East Poplar 011 field mailer Page 23 of 45 
83 

analyzed, at a minimum, for the parameters displayed in Table 4. For the 

purposes of this paragraph. samples shall consist of a raw· waler from each public 

water well and a sample taken at the point of entry into the public water 

distribution system. The first sample collection shall oCcur before the end of 

December, 2010. 

73. Table 4 lists the required analytical methods applicable to the samples collected. 

For the required strontium isotope analysis, the laboratory must calibrate its 

reported data against the EN·l standard, commonly used in laboratories analyzing 

samples' for Sr isotopes. 

74. EPA-or its representative may obtain split samples during any sampling evenL II 

shall be EPA's responsibility to have sample bottles ready and availabie, and to 

coordinate with the designated sampling team for timing and· logistics pUrposes. 

75. Respondents sball alert BPA at least seven (7) days prior to each sampling event, 

to allow EPA or its representative to collect split samples if desired: 

76. Respondents sball pay for the sample collection efforts and sample analysis 

directed in this order. Respondents shall not charge the City of Poplar or its area 

·citizens for any such sampling or analysis. 

77. Respondents shall design the analysis work done by chosen laboratories in a 

manner to maximize repeatability and minimize any inter-laboratory variability in 

sample results. Samples shall be analyZed using drinking water methods. If one 

exists, at a laboratory certified to conduct drinking water methods.9 

78. Respondents shall design the sample schedule to meet the frequency descnbed in 

Table 4 with samples collected at approximately the same pcsiitt within the sample 

, See Tide 40 01 the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 141.28 

East ·Poplar on field maner Page 24 of 45 
84 

collection interval. 

Provide Safe Public Drinking Water If Needed 

79. Respondents shall, if any of the monitored water quaiity parameter!' from water 

supply wells is confirmed to exceed a threshold value shown in Table 5. supply 

safe drinking water to the point of entry into the distribution network currently 

used by thc City of Poplar to distribute its public water. Re~pond~nls shall bear 

the cost of providing such water. Paragraphs 80 through 83 describe the details 

for this process. 

80. If results from the City of Poplar pubic water supply point-or-entry sample show 

an exceedanee of the any of constituents listed in Table 5. Respondents shall. 

within 72 hours of any Respondent lellming of the exceedanee, sample again for 

each constituent exceeding tltc vlllue shown in Table 5. Each re-sampled 

constituent found to be above the threshold value in Table 5 shall be deemed a 

confirmed exceedance. 

81. Samples collected for confirming all execedance shall be analyzed at the same 

laboratory that produced the original exceedance value. Only if the original 

laboratory is incapable of analyzing the re-sample shall an alternate laboratory be 

considered. and only after consultation with the alternate laboratory to ensure it 

employs the same analytical methods as those used at the original laboratory. 

82. The threshold values shown in TlIblc 5 for these constituents are based on the 

following rationale: the groundwalercontamination plumes in the area have 

considerably higher concentrations of constituents named in Table 5 than are 

presently found in the City of Poplar's public water supply. At the concentrations 

East Poplar oil field mailer Page 25 of 45 
85 

found in the more contaminated areas of the groundwuter plume, the watcr would 

be rendered dangerous to drink and may not be useable for other domestic 

purposes, The contamination hus moved and is now entering the City of Poplar's 

public water supply. The conccntrations of the constituents listed in Table 5 are 

likely to increase and muy do so abruptly with the arrival of the bulk of one or 

more of the groundwalcr contamination plumes. The threshold valucs represent 

an "early warning" of an impending condition whercby thc public water wclls arc 

rendered unusable. The "early warning" is chosen 10 allow Respondents adequate 

time to 'react to new information to install the requisite treatmcill or alternate 

supply of public drinking waler for the City of Poplar. 

83. Upon a confirmed exceednnce of one or more of the parameters in Table 5 in the 

City of Poplar's water, as described in paragraph 80, Respondents shall within 

seven days provide a safc supply of drinking water to the City of Poplar. The safe 

supply of drinking water shall meet all primary drinking wuler standards at the 

point of entry into thc City's public water system, shall meet secondary drinking 

water standards such that the aesthetic characteristics of Ihe wnter are equal to or 

betler than those measured by EPA's November 19.2010, sample results. and 

shall meet the cun'ent volumetric demand for consumptive uscs in the homes of 

people served by the City'S public water system. Respondents shall assure there 

nre trained drinking waleI' personnel operating the public watcr supply system, as 

the water supply is nmendcd through Respondents' complying actions. This 

responsibility for ensuring there nre trained operators UI the public water supply 

shall include reasonable financial assistance to the City for its existing public 

East Poplar all field matter Page 26 of 45 
86 

water supply system operator if one now exists. or. if trained personnel are not 

now present, Respondents shall provide the necessary means to obtain trained 

personnel. 

Sample and Analyze the Private Water Wells 

84. On or after the effective date of this order. and upon a request by any homeowner 

residing within the 15 square mile area described in paragraph 28, Respondents 

shall collect monthly samples for analysis of the eonstitllents found in Table 4 

from such homeowner's priva~e water weU used ror humal: consumption. If the 

. residence employs ullY wat~r treatment, the minimum number of samples 

collected shall include both a raw and fmished water sample. If there is no water 

treatment employed. the minimum number of samples collected shall be one raw 

water sample. 

85. EPA 9r its representative may obtain split samples during any sampling event. It 

shall ;be EPA 's responsibility LO have sample bOllles relldy and available and to 

coordinate with the designated sampling team for liming and logistics purposes. 

86. Respondents shall alert EPA at least seven (7) duys prior 10 each sampling event. 

to allow EPA or its representative to collect split samples if desired. 

87. Respondents shall pay for the sample collection efforts and sample analysis 

directed in this order. Respondents shall not churge the homeowner for any such 

sampling or anal y~is. 

88. Homeowners within this 15 square mile area whose water supply is currently via 

one or more private wells may request to have their well water sampled and 

analyzed. Homeowners may conlact either EPA or OEP, using the respective 

East Poplar oil field matter Page 27 of 45 
87 

contact infonnation found in paragraph 100. EPA and OEP will communicate 

about homeowner well wilIer sampling requests. 

89. EPA will transmit to Re.o;pondenls, via email, the infonnalion about homeowncr 

well water sampling requests. 

90. Upon receipt by Respondents of the homeowners wishing their watcr sampled, 

Respondents shall ndd these homes to a monthly sampling schedule. Unless there 

arc fewer than 7 days prior 10 the next scheduled sampling evenl !IIlhe City of 

Poplar, newly added sample locations at private residences shall be collected 

during the City of Poplar snmpling. For those timing situations where fewer than 

7'dliys exist before the City of Poplar sampling is scheduled, the newly added 

sample locations at private residences shall be collected at the next monthly 

sampling event of lhe City of Poplar's public water. 

91. Within seven days after Respondent receives the residential wlllcr sample results 

from the laboratory, the laboratory results shall be sent 10 each individual 

homeowner, and copies shall be submitted to the addresses in paragmph 100. 

Provide Bottled Drinking Water to Area Residents Using Private Wells If Needed 

92. If any of the monitored wille.' qunlity parameters from a private'homeowner's 

water well is confinncd to exceed a threshold value shown in Table 5. 

Respondent<; shall supply bouled drinking water to such private homeowner. 

Respondents shall bear the cost of providing such bottled water. Paragmphs 93 

through 96 describe the details for this process. 

93. If results from any private homeowner's well water show an cxccedance of the 

any of conslituents listed in Table 5, Respondents shall, within 72 hours of nny 

East Poplar oil field maner Page 28 of 4S 
88 

Respondenlleaming of the exceedanc:e. sample again for each constituent 

exceeding the value shown in Table S. Each re-sampled constituent found to be 

above the threshold value in Table S shall be deemed a confirmed exceedancc. 

94. Samples collected for confinning an exeeedance sball be analyzed at the same 

laboratory that produced the original exceedance value. Only if the original 

laboratory is incapabl~ of analyzing the re-sample shall an alternate laboratory be 

considered, and only after copsultation with the alternate laboratory to ensure it 

employs the same analytical methods as those used at ~e originall~1roratory. 

95. The threshold values shown in Table Sfor these constituents are ~ on the 

following rationale: the groundwater contan'!inatiO!1 plumes in the an;a have high 

concentrations of constituents named in Tabl~ S. such that the contaminants upon 

arriving at a private homeowner's well, would render said water dangerous to 

drink and ltU!-y not be useable for other domestic purposes. The contamination has 

moy-ed and is now entering the City ~f Poplar's public water supply. The 

grounqwater movement is complex and the contaminated groundwater may 

'. ' i,nvade, the area listed in paragraph 28. The concentrations of the constituents 

lIsted in Table 5 are likely to increase if the contaminated groundwater arrives 

abruptly with the bulk of one or more of the groundwater contamination plumes. 

The threshold values were chosen to rep'resent an "early warning" of an 

impending condition whereby one or more homeowner's private water well is 

rendered unusable. The "early warning", is cbosen to allow Respondents adequate 

time to react to new information to provide bottled water to such homeowners. 

96. Upon a confumed exeeedence of one or more of the parameters in Table 5 in any 

East Poplar 011 field matter Page 29 of 45 
89 

homeowner's private well water. Uli described in paragraph 93, Respondents shall 

within seven days provide bottled water such homeowner. Thc bottled drinking 

water shull meet nil primnry drinking water standards nt the point of entry into the 

City'S public water system, shall meet secondnry drinking water standards such 

that the aesthetic chnracteristics of the watt:r art; equal to or beller than those 

measured by EPA's November 19,2010, sample rcsults. The quantity of bottled 

water to be delivered upon n confirmed cxceedance shall, nt a minimum. be 

calcuiated as 2 litefS per day per resident, unless this quantity is deemed by the 

homeowner to exceed theil' need. 

SUBMIT A PLAN TO EPA TO PROVIDE AQUIFER REMEDIATION OPTIONS 

97. Within 90 days of lhe effective date of this order, Respondents shall submit to 

EPA for approval, a plan describing how Respondents intend to identify options 

for cleaning, capturing or otherwise removing thc groundwuter contamination 

cndangerment to the alluvium and gillciallill. The plan shall include the 

following components. 

A. A review of available data relevant for charllcterizing the groundwater 

contamination and associnted hydro-geologic selling. 

8. Identify gaps in the data necessary to characterize the groundwater 

contnminlltion and ussocinlcd hydro-geologic setting, and describe how 

such gaps would be filled, 

C. Identify options for clenning, capturing or otherwise removing the 

groundwater contamination, 

D. Descriptions of efficacy testing and/or modeling to fully eva\uure the 

East Poplar oilfield mailer Page 300f 45 
90 

options in subparagraph C above, and II time estimate for conducting 

efficacy testing and/or modeling. 

E. A time estimate to fully evaluate and recommend a preferred fCmedial 

option. 

OTHER REQUIREMENTS 

98. Respondents shall diligently seek any necessary approvals for complying with any 

requirements in this order. 

99, Respondents shall conlin!lc to meet rcquirements in paragraphs 79 through 83 

until the earlier of: (I) the City of Poplar's PWS is served by the Dry Prairie I Fort 

Peck Rural Water System. being built by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and said 

water system has been !>perating without exceeding any MCLs for a period of one 

month, or (2) EPA releases Respondents from these paragraphs. 

100, Reporting: 

Any reporting required under this Order shall be directed to recipients as follows: 

For EPA. 

Nathan Wiser 

. Mailing address: 1595 Wynkoop Street. Denver CO 80202 (8ENF-UFO) 

Email address: wiser.nathan@epa·.gov 

Phone number (303) 312-62 t I : 

For City of Poplar. 

Linda Christiansen. 

Mailing address: P.O. Box 630. Poplar MT 59255. 

Street address: 406 2nd Ave West, Poplar MT 59255. 

Email address: cityofpoplar@nemontel.nel 

Phone number (406) 768-3483; 

For Montnnn DEO. 

Jon Dilliard 

Mailing address: 1520 E. Sixth Ave .• P.O. Box 20090 I. Helena, MT 59620-090 I 

Email address: jdillial'd@ml.gov 

Phone number: (406) 444-2409: and 

East Poplar oil field matter Pagc3J of 45 
91 

For Fort Pcck Tribes Office of Environmental Prolection: 

Deb Madison 

Mailing address: P.O. Box \027. Poplar MT 59255 

Strcet address: 

Emili! address: 2horses@ncmolllcl.ne\ 

Phone number: (406) 768·2389. 

10 I. The provisions of this Order shall apply 10 and be binding upon 

Respondents. their officers. directors. agents. successors lind assigns. Notice of 

this Order shlll1 be given to any successors in interest contemporaneous wilh 

succession. Action or inaction of any persons. firms. conlmctors, employees. 

agents. or corporations acting under. through or for Respondents. shall not excuse 

any failure of Respondents to fully perform their obligations under Ihis Order. 

102. This Order docs not constitute a waiver. suspension. or modification of the 

requirements of any federal statute. regulation. or condition of any permit issued 

thereunder, including Ihe requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which 

remllin in full force lIml effect. Issuance of this Order is not a waiver by EPA 10 

forego any additional ndministrative. civil. or criminlllllction(s) otherwise 

authorized under the Act. 

103. This Emergency Administrative Order is u final agency action by EPA. 

104. This Emergency Administrative Order is binding on all Respondents. 

105. Unless otherwise indicllted. all days referred to in this Order are 

considered to be clliendllf days. 

East Popla( oil field matter Page 32 of 45 
92 

106. The effective date of this Order shall be three (3) days rrom the date of 

issuance, not including the day of issuance. 

Issued this ___ day of _______ ,.2010. 

Sandra A. Stavnes, Director 

UIC/FIFRAlOPA Technical Enforcement Program 

Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Michael T. Risner, Director 

Legal Enforcement Program 

Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

East Poplar oilfield matter Page 33 of 45 
93 

SlImple$ource D~c!iptlon 

e~~~;~--·- ·;~it~o~~;;:~;;· bile Warer Sli' -E .'Well.itl .-.:. . . ---~- ... --.... '" ._. __ ... _ .. _ .. __ •. _;Y.i.~_P!!!L~1!ll __ ... , __ ~ __ ._Pll.~_. ___ ... _ ..... _ .... _ .. _ ..... ----.----- ... __ . __ _ 

COP-2 .... _£!ty~f~~.I?!~~~l!blicW~t~r:~~pp.IJW~II.#2_. .... .... _ "._"_"'_"'"" 

CQP.~.~_ ."_ . , ... ,bi.ty!ofif9R1!1t~:Q!je:Water:§i!Pilit W~l}tL,._ .. ~:_ ....._._ ... _ ..... _._ ..... _ .. _. 

OS~I.._. Gity .Qf!QPJiI! dis!ri~uled system~nler. COnecl~d at point of ~~UY into ~stributio~ srstem 

D$~2,-,-•... : _ .. ;¢jty'9.f~tip\.!IT.djst~butc:qJY§~mwiller. coij~.cl!l~at;point·.\Yitl)jMll~4is.!!ibujioil$yslerri ... 

EPU \·0 ..... ~alt'Yal:rpisposa\ We~ 

J;PJH:§ _._ ' .. : j9!Q\f!!$lw.@.W..ll\I.-.Jjs~glID!l\y!!; 

Hub~r S·D' . Salt Water Oisp!)sa\ W~~I 

i$w~.9I·J~m~~;~~i;~~;~i·~ ..... '-~~_:'_"_ .. ~~ . .-.=~"~~~=:~-=~.~~-==~.~:: LAW·Mln .9roul)!Iw!lJ!lrIyfonilqringWell. ;.--~ .. - ...... 'I'--~ ... -.--. .,. .---. -:----: ..... M~3:~ __ _ .... IGro\lli\hY,aiert?t~[I.iQtl9!i.:W¥lL .".._ ...... 

M .. 71 Gro\llldwater Pro~\lclion Well ..... .,- '''-' ...... r .. · .. ··_ .. :··-· . -... _ .. :' .... ; ..... _. MOQ~l{. J~toJln.~w.@lCt:MQmt9~Jlg~YltliL. 

~9~~_ ._ ... _ .. ,2~u.~dwa~ .. ~~ni~ori~~~~U 

PNR'"2-1_ ...... __ jQ..~UildW!i!~ M~l1ilo..rti!gW~! 

~R.R~PR·!109. ~.utface Waler· Poplar River 

::.:. --::::::-:<-:-;~-··11.··~<'·-"·:-·:-:::--... "· '-" :-::."-' .... J:!t7RjP~;Q4#, •. J§!iPfliCe~Wa~t:;E.iiP1lir:lRiy.!lL .:_ 

USGS 06·11 Grouqdwl!ter Moni\orillll Well . '. '-'Ii:-~---'---- .~- :~~. -.--,".--~.-.. ~. 

Us~.Q§.·jL ..... J !3.toun4\Vlitet'~QiljJ.Qti!ii W!lIJ. .. __ 

USGS 09·2 

~SG.s;Q9'.9 

qrotpdw.~er~on~oring Well 

, Qr.o,YMwli!~tMc>nit9.ri!lgW!lIl .. 

USGS 09 .. 7Gro~)l4~~e~~o.'!itQril!g W.ell 

WSG.S:~~'f.1;I __ :§to(fntlWat~rM9nMrit\g:W.~l1: 

USSG 09·3 Groundwater Monitoring Well 

East Poplar oilfield matter Page 34 of 45 
94 

.~l~\~¥L~~~!!l!!~~~!~~~J'~~f:1:~::~~~u:~i~:~O~~.!:D~: ", .. ,' " ,''''''_ Ch!Ilge La!!' Lab 

Sample BaIilncepH SC Na Mg' K Cn F CI HCOJ S04 NOJ Br 

, ' " percent ps/cm mg/L mgIL mgIL mg/L mgIL, mg/L mgILmgL milL, ml:/L 

cijw;~~4.:-:T::ii;l.,::~'j4.'14M&JC~~:JiJ.5.i;[~f.~r fr2f::'~Ji;:-.iii~~:~i7iJrg~~09;~([Qi34i 

C~P·l .0,1 7;6 192'6 337 32.6 5:87 66.0 0.38 189 600 271, 0.11 1.81 

~"i:i.:=J~:ii'=':Ci7~I!.~i.4=JU~~J!;~~;6. ;;_ ~!9~~ f'§1;~'j:'g.~~,::~:~P ';: ,,~~fJ!:~l7?Io:'oiTi~$~ cop·g " 0.1" '7,4 ,. 3230 518.' 56.0 8,20 109' 0,28 783 SI6' 105 . '<0,02 7,80 --=-c"--'"''''''-'--''--'--'I~-'-''''' " -"" :. '.'-,,-'-,"--:--c" -' •.. ' ... ':~' .. ' .--, .. - .. ,. " ' •. _.- -, 

~~~!L~ ". __ j~--::O~ ,;~,~"/;.!l:-;~~gs.g.;; .. ~~I~~;i;:.~l1J L~~, :;9.~0 ;.:.2~8:. ;~,'.l~;";;.tg~,:;~QJl.t;. 7;~2 , 

EPU1-0 -1.4 7.0 150000 42800 2i3 6911460' 5.05 7.06Q02421350 <0.80 23.0 

ji~fM$L_~JC~4J[:iJ~;t~!9,ijnE~liji.'~\?'Jr~Ji~]l.!Qfu~lj)!~Jr::~~~J!.;%i.~:?:Jr'2;9;.J=~§.i.:. 

H~b~r5·p' ~1;7:", 7.0 ;'ii~oD~3220Q:'14t 438,854 s;iis1800.:274·' i700'oii' 10.3 

:~WiMgt,_J~41J:J[i;i"J:Ji~~f-j,2SG[}~i:li~7.:1]!f~.::;Q~i~:]~ii]Lj~.J[~"4=[~9.:Q~[Q.Qii 

M-3~.9· . 7.6'5130' , if3' .139; 12.7hz·liz!··: 1400 ,543 315 <0.03 0.494 

,MiiI'::,:Jl~i:'Ji:jIJU:9Ji~[i(lI~~p')il[~~:j[j1ffiL~~Zi~~~~iJ;:;~1;~ilM~Llt1~.i9iJEQ~1~4' 

MOC-li . ,-i):9 7.0' 24990;$189'~74 ' 26.0. 512 0;~187bo ~8Q 1250 <9.12 17.9 

.MQgi~~_j~~i:~J;j~'::'Jii.f!f~QQJ[~~' Ii ~?~"ri[']i~r~~Ci4~QI~M3J[;ij~~:~9:~~J: i..~.~' 

PNR;27 .' -i).8 ., 6.734900 '" 5~6Q~: 13~0 61;9 ,1~~0'p,16 . ~·2900.: 722 ,2060 . 201 -,3.41 

----, ·-r-:-.. --r'·c .. ~J __ -~' ....... '-I .... "-·' 'r"--"'--:-""-'r;r~"-'-'--'''"-, ""'-'''-,-''c'''--I--' ',," ~RB;&R~~~,,-j~1: .. .lUiS!: !..:!4~L)L.~tt.1I ~glQ'i! ,@;~1!1.1~1~, !, ~;4~dL~1;L~ .. 16i. jL'E't~!., j;!~M~! :Q;Q1~ 

P~~R'PR-04i' Q;s' .. :, U-i779 i 331' S.O,~ 9:0~ .. ill;90;~2 ~~o , M~ .. : .287 ;<0:02" 0.128 

......... 

~SGSlii~il'L- '" _ ;011)' ..... _ •.• !iiili!, _. YL..JL l' .... i~-r",;'il'2fii9":;'42Iir _.2Y.-.IL.~, ..... ~ .. t. __ ~~.~._ .... t_~L .... 3sfj'r ".~~. ,~ 6~rri:z:;£ __ :.J ...... , .... ~_ ·H·~6Of.lf'i'7.2ni:b:on(j:096 ... _ ......... _ .• ~.-.. •• ~~l ........ __ ._ ••. __ 

USGS06'S" .o.i·· 7.7-- i166 . 248' 12.5 3.76, i$;6 '0A318.0 sss 165~O.oi 0.(176 

~~~o§:~:J:~iojtJ[H~J[~IJ~::~jJ[@J :[~CZQ.I~pi:~:Q;~~![J§~·,·i[.i.~i.~[}lQ=i~QtQf[~;?3: USGS 09·6 ... -i.3 . 6.S 19810· 2310 778 33.2 9~70.10" 7360 243 '376 <0.10 3.08 

·t!.S§~;Q~;!.~:r'~~J:~ .. M T~§~iQ.:·~ ,:?KY '~?f li;g;r:!~T,Q4f1~. i~9' [4~i~j~~I :::'~Qiiif;::.Q:~ii? 

USGS 92-11 -1.1 8.1 6330 1400 12.7 7.65 36,.0 0.48 1730. 614 . 309 . 0.08 0.643 

Q~i<?iQg:~~ ii 'iIt . ]l7.1::~Ci147~.T MrjL~~ii §:9f~f ;;,Q;i'i-T11J .. :!~4~i~[i7IJ~j:f~:9:~$~' 

East Poplar all fiald matler Page 35 or 4S 
95 

East Poplar oil field mailer Page 38 of 45 
96 

Table:3; t;JSGSNo.vember 2010 Sample Resulf$: Orga,l)ic and JnorganlcCoilstituents . "",',.. . .,," ,; .~;" . , .'". ' . . '. ~.' .. , . 

S'mpleSource COP· I COP·I COP·I COP· I COP.2 cop·! COP·2 COP.2 OS·l OS·l OS·2 OS·2 

:SQ~pl~~~"'-~' If !: ,V'R "T-~rTi' Tlf~' 'T.':- r~~i~"""-"'" R 

Inorganic Conltltuents (mgiL) 

~~ ~ ill ill ffi m m m _ m m ~ m 

C8lcinm 43.7;;:,'1t~' '~~~'I;" ~4j:: ~6;8t . 593.-:: 62.2 ~·5J:S:)S:9~,:!6S~~:~~:,,_44.3 ", - .-:~.\ 

PotQssium 4.76 4,S5· 4,81 4,63 5;35 5.3 5.525.42 5;77 5.61 4.99 4.81 

:M;~um _,_ ... ' ~:7~', ~i41')4~": 1{ ,]1:1" ~.7.1 37.8,3j:S 39:4, 38~,. 2S 24.4 

MonganCS\l 0,366 0.339 <0,002 <0.002 0.0073 0.0072 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.003 0.002 

'i~T~~-= -~~" "~~;~,-~9~":'J:~(:~,~;~f~f9::'lfJ:!:,i,,~.·'OF~>:O}IOii~Jd:'.<O;!( «).iE-, 410:.0:10 

Strontium 0.48 0:459 0.468 0.424 0.693 0.704 0.65 0.618 0.685 0.679 0.471 0.459 

:q~~r'~~-':=-=;-)1O'ijJ1rr)38~" ~4.~':' 1~1 i[(:::~I~j:T,~-':;:}3(:"li("'2~9:: ~i28 

Bromi~e. 1.2 . 1.2 <o,s <0.5 2.3 23 0.9 0.9 0.9 <OS <0.5 

:'s~;'ij;.~·,=::'~- [~I"L~( :,j~~;"~: 3J9 ji,:;~2:~'::-~~~C:l';~~r~~ ~CC3~;~'I'~~~j -:2~8' Alkllllnity 477 471 449 449 487 488 S02 502' 502 . 503' 450 '. 449 

~IDS:- ,. :;,1tl4O : 1\030 ,. ~i;020':-I;OiO':: .1,110 ' ~1\iio")\210 ;!i..io .:'I;z7~Ii.27~,~[ 1,@iTJ:oio 

Organic Constkucnts (pgIL) 

I.I.I-uiehloroewne 0.92 0.92 

· ~.!oQ~biOiicih~·~:: .... 014 j 0,2,6 !. . 

2·butanone 0, 18 O.~7 1 0.94 1.04 0.10' J 0.101 

~~~:~=~. __ lC~·:,''';_~_ .. _i34: ., tis *.,. ·i~:f .. ,., ......... ~~: ~_. _~;,.~:~~L~~~~.'t BromDchloromelltane 4.31 4.28 

=B~~i¥t~~~ji~1:tJ;'~~!il::j9£.~~··3.~:·:. :;ij~ .·;L ~itf.':I.ff'[~~~1~~fE:~~~~:;:~'~~~I..i9:S Bromoform (US 1 0.44. j. 59,S 58.4 24.8 2S 11.3 Il.l lOS' 1 L2 59.4 933 

~~i@~i~6"T~=-'j~~.: ':;-". ·:.~:::ii~i~!j'r-::-r.·~:~: [,·~:~"·~-·T~.:~ OuiIilir~lsillficie .. 017 J '0.25 J 

~'cii~~j;;C:- ,- ,-:i.Q,I~ J:i:O~ J~~~63C:' '~Ifi~7.2~ :f'i~~~-"- h4' --,- '1'· , P "I:Zl,11\~~.:;- ~.:.4; 3.56 

Chloromethane ' 0.27' J 0.37 1 0.17 I' 0.20 1 

.. J>.Ib~~!M~'#Ilil;:~:6~,L: .li6' "'0,8 'i!15 j 36;4- 36:9 8:03 8.29· 44.(..; "0 

Dibro!1lOlllOthane 8.36 8.51 0,1 I 0.15 J 

;~~~~pe:,~.' . "It ' :,O;?1 1:, O~4.1;: 

~~~ YJ~1 

~~~~f\~~in,~;'--,'_~ ~-:!,o.i~J ';'q~if;r'i~0.31J,:: G.43" ) ':0'2.1 J ; ;~:2~ji:, o:f~fj; o.;isJ i,:Q':U{f:1o;2.t~ jo;t~i,! ,0:31' J . 

Methyl iodide OSS 0.54 

• Mcth.iil~o,cIirqdM 

o·xylene 

· Tert:b~I,~~~ol 

T.tnlchydroful'llll 

:; . 

2 

'" :0:ii6, I' ;1 

0.24 J 0.26 J 

0.63 0.59 

Toluene 0:48 J' 0.46 j: (i.Sii J 0,S6 6.17J O. ri 1 

U =Untreated, sample collected a~ raw water 

T =Trollled. !nmplc collected nner Fe. Mn removal nnd chlorintltion treatmelll 

R "Replicate sample. sample collected inuneditltely following initial samplc 

J =Sample re.lult is above method detection limit and below method reponing limit 

East Poplar oil field matter Page 39 of 45 
97 

:Tahle4. ~$WQI'.4~ . . . . . ~ •••• , ..•. _ ••••• -._. _____ ---'" __ .... _, __ .... ....:.. ___ .... · ___ ..... _~, •• t • • _ ••• - "-;-f, •• • ---... -----, 

Tolueue Monlhly 524.3 

[~~~.~==~][~~~~~-~···~·~~-··)l~!~=~~ ~~,··~= .. ,~··~~ .. ·,:=.·:~= .. ~-··-:·~=.l Xyleues (total) Monlhly 524.3 ... ~ ..... ," .;.. ~.:. .. :' ., ..... ' " ........ _._"",. .... _ ....... --.,...;.._ .. _ ...... -

~ti~::~J~~~~.:::]:Mon~.:· ......... ~_...!~l.~~_ ... __ ... _._ .. ~~.~.~L.: ,,,. .. . ... .. .. Tho 8lSrl"sr ralio must be accUmte 10 withiD iD.oo002. Tho 

Strontium (Sr) IsoIOptl. M~~lhly data must be calibrated againsllhe BN;} Slapdajd. 

;'s_~,i~;) ... :-.... j[~_ ... -......... -.. ::.;;~~: ... -.-.... --" ... --.... "~ ........ "--: : ........ '''i 

\.~ .. '..::..:.. ..... _.~ ... _ ._.:.-._ .• 1 ..... l .. _.~"~.., .• --:,_J:., ....... ...:,._ .... _____ o· .... _.'_.,_ ...... ~."" •• "",:",~'._ .. _ : 

Mlllgauese (MIl) Monlhly 200.7 

r~.~~~"· ....... . ·.~]~~;~~_~=.~I~~ .. -~=~~~:··· ... =:·.7:.~-·~~.· ... ~~~~ .. ~-.~ .. : 

Sulfate (S04l Monlhly 300.0 

r '.~'-:-: ..... ..,----;----If'''-"""-:-"':'.-'-;'1; --....... -. _ .. , ..... ---... .......... . .. -.. . ..... : ........ . .. .. ": 

l ebloadO!(~ .... !1 Ml!11l&ly ! 30IU\. . Jt.... ____ .. _ .• _ •.••••• _,t ._ ....... '_" ________ . __ . ______ .... _.~ _______ ._ ........ . 

Calcium (Ol) Monlhly 200.7 

•••• - •.•. - •..• -.. ,-' ..... 'I ..... .. ...... ...... ..-. • ., ....... '-" "--"·"--'1 

j:J~roJJildiJ @ii).· '.' il'MGI!Jf!l.,· . . Ii 300:8· I '--_. ~_._.~., .. _~ _ ... ~t .... : ... :._ ...... __ ._ . __ .it ....... __ ... , .. 0., ••• " .• __ ...... __ ..... "':'_ .. " ________ 1 

Iodide (1) Monlhly Metbod reporting Hmlt muat be at least S microsrams per liter 

Barium(Ba) Monlhly 200.7 or 200.8 

east Poplar oil field matter Page 40 of 45 
98 

Constituent 'Action Level (11lg/L) Sample, point 

;_ --:;- ___ ~_.<.~ ...... ~w.~._ .. 

: '~~liz.eiic; : " , +Elit¢ri!'iE'#!~!l\buti()R sy*~' ~ '.--. .:::._--- ~.,.~ .. -.--.. ------._-_ .. -:1:.. . ... ~ .. _ .... _'., .~.' __ ~--: .. _..:.._ .. _. _ :-_:.~_ ..... 

Toluene 0;2 Entering distribution system 

..... -_.- - ,,- --,.. ---... ,. ._," .. " .... - .. -. :~ibyf~eilZAA~ " !: .' ......... _ ... '"". :.'~ .. 

',-

[:Eli~ering dlstriti.utl~h'sistem 

Xylenes 2 Entering distribution system 

[~~~~~~~~v,.~'~~¥~~): .~. -:~'-:"4~~ _:_ 

~®9' 

Manganese (Mn 0.3 Entering distribution·system 

,_ ... -. -'- '''-'-. -' -,-:"----"Ir'" . __ .... - .... - - .. ; .. ..:-.-':-'-,;-... ----.. -'--.'--'-----.-. --..'-

;SoqiuDj.)(iN~!, , ~ "jl •. ' " ,4G:O),., il~~fil'eriiilHn§I:ti~lltiCi.i;iysY~te'~t:· j ! .. ~_ ~,_--=-_, .. _._. ___ ~ _._ " ~ __ .. __ , ....... __ .... : ....... __ ... ~~-'-4 __ •• """":". __ 

500 Enlering distril:lution system __ .• 'A_. ~_ _ •.• ___ ••.• _._ ,_._",~. __ • 

250 . :i " - ,," :" . 

:;'Ent!!riil,g distriqutioil.system 

East Poplar oil field matter Page 41 of 45 
99 

Figure 1. Generalized location qflow hydraulic c~nductivity zone, 

selected surface-water sites, nnd' selected well., East'Poph,lr oilfield . 

. - o 

lOWtlY/lRP.'lIr COHOOCTMTV ZONE 

(s.s.P:'~""'.I>"'C' 3. Anctil;.,. "" .2einll) 

East Poplar oilfield matter 

(I (I G 0 

- •• ~,,- - l~ 

DO 

EXPI.ANA-T\ON 

WELL AMHIU.V.S!" ~ . '." .• \'" tyPi! d\!lerm:ned using 

<Ull<I!II\l4f.',· IJl19ttin ihd'1lk'J .lId M!tlll)ng !20011. '0 t~;N).\I_1I 

• Wd~'Hell",um!:leted.;n h.,··;!,!>I-; .. , Furm.\i;lII 

Ii> \J1I'~nlamll\dl~J' 

.. • 1. "'!.;'\'fhlt1J\' cOlulimlnJ:.:lj 

o -~friln"'r (Olll,'ml"dlt;ll. 

Page 42 of 45 
m 

OJ 

!!!. 

." 

o 

"2-

!!l 

g 

1[ 

Q. 

3 

OJ 

? 

.I>-

W 

o 

.., 

.l>-

v. 

1,000,000 

Figure 2, TDS and Strontium Concentrations 

USGS 2010 Samples 

-0-Total Dissolved Solids in mgll -o-Strontium in ugJI 

100,000 I correlation coefficient", 0.9825 

rt 

-0- 10,000 

"- 7 

;..=x v -0- u v 1.000 

100 

10 

J' ,," \>'1- rP<:J ff' ",'0' 

fa .J' &> ".,'1 =q V ..;:,<; ((". ((''' t1 f< .,i> .,.'" 

($-«' ,/' qI qoq 

J}:-- 11:1- i' '}..... 9''1- .!J:> 11> .cl" <V vO &><:J vo' vo ff' 

..;:,co,;)<; ..J' 

-¥", !!/'1 :--" 6'1> ...,0 ;-' :C- .p R &>"" _..,,,>'" "Iv r§><:J 'I.'?-'" ",e' 5)<; 

,;)<; ",1.1" v" ". v <8";:' 
m 

!!l '"

l 

III 

o 

::: 

iii' 

c: 

3 

!! 

;F 

t 

o 

.... 

e; 

CD 

...... 

CJ) 

:::!. 

CD 

Ol 

CJ) 

... 

P."""'$O 

epu t·DSVIO 

/Joe-< LAW-U" 

Figure 3, Reciprocal Strontium 

USGS 2010 Samples 

COl" PA·A·PtHm a O ..... o<ascsog., ,...71 QJCQP.I 0 USGSoo.2 0 Dec..., 0 o 0 0 o vSGSoo.n °;.1.3 US9JQ9.3- ..... ,,'" 

e "" •. 27 

Q USGS9'2-U 

o £pu.&.G 

-------

o 2 • 3 4 

17[S,r] in.Wmg 

Ii ; Moniloring Wells- HighlyConlamlnated <> ; Poplar River Surface Waler o = Poplar, MTWater Supply Wells 

o ; Monitoring Wells - Moderately Contaminated 

o a Monlto,ing Wells- Uncontaminated • Judilh River FormationWel! A • Injection Wens 

5 
102 

... 

d 

: T-------------~r_------~O_~~------------_4 

c 

::: 

~ ~----------~~----------~r_~------------~ 

East Poplar oilfield mailer Pagc45 of 45 
103 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Administrator. 

Dr. Birnbaum. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA BIRNBAUM, PH.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH SCIENCES AND NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members 

of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to 

present testimony on our current understanding of chemical contaminants in drinking water. My name is Linda Birnbaum, and I 

am the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and also Director of 

the National Toxicology Program. 

NIEHS and NTP continue to fund research on hazardous chemicals in the environment that can affect human health, including 

chemical contaminants in drinking water. Today I will talk about 

three of these contaminants: hexavalent chromium, perchlorate and 

trichloroethylene. 

Chromium VI is part of man industrial processes, such as electroplating, stainless steel production, leather tanning, textile manufacturing and wood preservation. It was featured in the movie 

Erin Brockovich and listed in the NTP report on carcinogens since 

1980 as a known human carcinogen. It is well established that ingestion of high concentration of chromium VI can lead to severe 

gastrointestinal distress and death. The NTP has done extensive 

animal testing on chromium VI in drinking water, and found that 

it causes cancer in laboratory animals following exposure in drinking water. 

NIEHS is also funding university researchers studying chromium 

VI. Scientists at New York University are looking at chromium VI 

toxicity and the expression of genes that may ultimately lead to 

cancer. A research group at Brown University, funded by our 

Superfund research program, is studying how exposure to chromium VI modifies DNA in human cells. This research gives information about dose and biological response and why one person is 

affected when another person is not. 

Other researchers in the group at brown are developing new 

methods for removing chromium VI from water supplies. 

Perchlorate, another chemical of concern, is found naturally in 

our climate, but it is also manufactured in the U.S. for munitions, 

flares and fireworks. We are concerned about perchlorate, because 

it can affect thyroid function by inhibiting the transport of iodide 

into the thyroid gland. Iodide uptake is necessary for the normal 

production of thyroid hormones, which are essential in fetal and 

post-natal brain development. In pregnant women, severe iodide 

deficiency results in neurodevelopmental problems in the fetus and 

newborn. 

So we need to ask if perchlorate in drinking water is linked to 

neurodevelopmental problems in infants. We also need to learn if 

perchlorate has effects on vulnerable groups, such as low birthweight or pre-term infants. This is a very hot area of research. 

A series of papers from the CDC and NIEHS between 2009 and 

2011 confirm that perchlorate levels in fetuses and infants compare 

with perchlorate levels in their moms. At this point, we are not 
104 

sure if low doses of perchlorate in drinking water result in harm 

to human development. But it is an important question. 

Again, cleanup is a key focus of our work. Through our Superfund research program, we are supporting development of online 

perchlorate detection and remediation systems, and a portable unit 

for water source analysis in the field. 

Now to trichloroethylene, or TCE. TCE is a solvent widely used 

for degreasing and cleaning materials and as a household cleaner. 

Due to its widespread use, TCE is often found as a contaminant in 

groundwater and drinking water. TCE can evaporate from contaminated water, creating a risk of inhalation exposure. 

This is important in the enclosed space of the home, where showering, dishwashing and laundry activities can increase the potential for exposure by both inhalation and absorption through the 

skin. Children exposed to TCE contaminants have been reported to 

have experienced increase respiratory disease, such as bronchitis, 

asthma and pneumonia. 

In this case, the wells supplying the drinking water were contaminated with a mixture of volatile organic compounds besides 

TCE, including the related compound, perchlorethylene. The link 

between exposure to TCE in humans is uncertain. Once study of 

more than one and a half million residents in 75 different towns 

showed higher incidences of leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma 

in groups of females exposed to TCE concentrations greater than 

5 parts per billion. 

Several studies conducted in Woburn, Massachusetts led the 

Massachusetts Department of Health to conclude there was an 

eightfold higher risk of leukemia in children whose mothers were 

exposed to solvent-contaminated drinking water during pregnancies. These studies again involved a mixture of chemicals, including TCE, in the water. 

TCE was listed in 2005 as reasonably anticipated to be a human 

carcinogen in the congressionally mandated NTP report on carcinogens. The listing was based on evidence from seven human studies, 

along with the studies in laboratory animals. Both showed that 

TCE exposure caused tumors, especially in the liver. A review of 

epidemiological literature showed that TCE was associated with 

higher incidences of liver cancer, kidney cancer, non-Hodgkins 

lymphoma, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma. But these studies were based on a relatively small number of exposed workers 

and were confounded by exposure to other volatile organic solvents 

and risk factors. 

Our work on TCE is continuing in several Superfund programs. 

The new Northeastern University Center is testing drinking water 

in Puerto Rico for TCE. This multi-disciplinary project combines 

hydrogeological, epidemiological and mechanistic research to determine if any of these chemicals are associated with the risk of preterm birth. They are also testing a new remediation strategy using 

solar energy to break down TCE in groundwater. 

The University of Washington Center is using genetically engineered poplar trees to break down organic chemicals. The University of Kentucky Center has pioneered a new type of nanoparticle 

filter that removes TCE from water. 
105 

1 Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s045chro.pdf. 2http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/chromium/chromium.html. 

3Saryan LA, Reedy M. 1988. Chromium determinations in a case of chromic acid ingestion. 

J Anal Toxicol 12:162–164. 4Gibb HJ, Lees PSJ, Pinsky PF, et al. 2000a. Clinical findings of irritation among chromium 

chemical production workers. Am J Ind Med 38:127–131. 5Goulart M., Batoreu MC, Rodrigues AS, Laires A., Rueff J. Lipoperoxidation products and 

thiol antioxidants in chromium exposed workers. Mutagenesis (5): 311–315. 

In conclusion, it is important to remember that determining risk 

from chemical exposures through drinking water, or through any 

other route of exposure, is a complicated enterprise. New data are 

telling us to look beyond chemical concentrations in water or air, 

and instead to look at the chemical concentrations inside our bodies. We also need to consider the timing of exposure our individual 

genetic susceptibility and the fact that our exposures are always to 

a mixture of chemicals. 

At NIEHS, we are proud to provide the best possible science in 

support of the incredibly difficult task that our sister regulatory 

agencies face. We are committed to advancing the science to new 

heights, using the newest tools to improve our understanding of the 

effects of environmental chemicals and to promote effective strategies for exposure reduction and disease prevention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to 

answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Birnbaum follows:] 

STATEMENT OF LINDA S. BIRNBAUM, PH.D., DABT, ATS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTI- TUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH; 

AND DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee—I am pleased to 

appear before you today to present testimony on our current understanding regarding chemical contaminants in drinking water. My name is Linda Birnbaum; I am 

the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of 

the National Institutes of Health and the Director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP). 

NIEHS and NTP have funded years of research on hazardous chemicals in the 

environment that can affect human health, including chemicals that are sometimes 

found as contaminants in drinking water. I will address three specific contaminants 

of interest: hexavalent chromium, perchlorate, and trichloroethylene. 

Hexavalent chromium, or chromium VI, is a form of chromium that is produced 

and used in many industrial processes, such as electroplating, stainless steel production, leather tanning, textile manufacturing, and wood preservation. Many people know of it as the chemical contaminant featured in the movie, ‘‘Erin 

Brockovich’’. This chemical is listed in the NTP’s Report on Carcinogens as a known 

human carcinogen; it was first listed in 1980.1 The chromium molecule exists mostly 

in either trivalent (chromium III) or hexavalent (chromium VI) states. Chromium 

III is an essential micronutrient at low doses, although it can be toxic in large doses; 

chromium VI is about a thousand times more toxic than chromium III.2

It is well established that ingestion of high concentrations of hexavalent chromium can lead to severe gastrointestinal distress and death. Review of unfortunate 

accidental exposures and suicides indicates an acute lethal concentration as low as 

4.1 milligrams of hexavalent chromium per kilogram body weight.3 Long term exposures of workers to hexavalent chromium on the skin have been shown to cause severe skin lesions and irritation.4 However, these effects are not expected at the very 

much lower doses associated with most people’s exposure from public drinking 

water. 

When inhaled, chromium VI is genotoxic to humans, meaning that it can damage 

DNA through the production of reactive oxygen.5 The carcinogenic effects of breathing chromium VI (nasal, sinus, and lung cancer) are well established. However, for 

a long time, this genotoxic mechanism and resultant carcinogenicity from inhalation 

were not so clear for the case where it is ingested, as in drinking water. NTP has 
106 

6 NTP 2008a. Final technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium dichromate dihydrate in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. Accessed at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ 

files/546lweblFINAL.pdf. 7 Epigenetic programming refers to the ways in which nonsequence-related modifications of 

the DNA molecule regulate gene expression. 8Macfie A, Hagan E, Zhitkovich A. 2010. Mechanism of DNA-protein cross-linking by chromium. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2010, 23 (2), pp 341–347. 9Meller J, Zappel H, Conrad M, Roth C, Emrich D, Becker W Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 1997; 105 Suppl 4:24–7. 10Kirk AB. 2006. Environmental perchlorate: why it matters. Anal Chim Acta 567:4–12. 11Wolff J. 1998. Perchlorate and the thyroid gland. Pharmacol Rev 50:89–105. 12 Blount BC, Pirkle JL, Osterloh JD, Valentin-Blasini L, Caldwell KL 2006 Urinary perchlorate and thyroid hormone levels in adolescent and adult men and women living in the 

United States. Environ Health Perspect 114:1865–1871. 13Pearce EN, Lazarus JH, Miyth PPA, et al. 2010. Perchlorate and thiocyanate exposure and 

thyroid function in first-trimester pregnant women. J Clin Endocrin Metabol 95:73207–73215. 14 14 Greer MA, Goodman G, Pleus RC, Greer SE 2002 Health effects assessment for environmental perchlorate contamination: the dose response for inhibition of thyroidal radioiodine uptake in humans. Environ Health Perspect 110:927–937. 15http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?recordlid=11202&page=R1. 16 Blount BC, Rich DQ, Valentin-Blasini L et al. 2009 Perinatal exposure to perchlorate, 

thiocyanate, and nitrate in New Jersey mothers and newborns. Environ Sci Technol. 43:7543– 

7549. 17 Borjan M, Marcella S, Blount B, et al. 2011. Perchlorate exposure in lactating women in 

an urban community in New Jersey. Science of the Total Environment 409: 460–464. 

done extensive animal testing to provide information on chromium VI toxicity and 

carcinogenicity via drinking water. The NTP studies showed that sodium dichromate dihydrate, a water-soluble salt of chromium VI, caused cancer in laboratory 

animals following oral ingestion in drinking water.6

NIEHS-funded researchers are continuing work on chromium VI. Investigators at 

New York University have been looking at mechanisms of ingested chromium VI 

toxicity, exploring the ways in which it may affect epigenetic programming7 and 

gene silencing and ultimately lead to cancer. Another research group at Brown University is studying the mechanism of DNA-chromium VI adduct formation and 

DNA-protein crosslinking by chromium VI using in vitro models. They have suggested that the DNA modifications produced by chromium VI in human cells could 

serve as highly specific indicators of individual dose.8 A separate study in a rat 

model is looking at whether lactational exposure to chromium VI affects ovarian development in offspring. Even more importantly, other NIEHS-funded researchers in 

our Superfund research program are developing new methods for removing chromium VI and other metals from water supplies. 

Perchlorate is a chemical found naturally in arid climates and is manufactured 

in the U.S. for a variety of uses primarily as a solid rocket propellant (e.g., in munitions, flares and fireworks). In the past, perchlorate has been used in the treatment 

of human diseases and is still used as a diagnostic tool in medicine (the perchlorate 

discharge test, which is used to diagnose thyroid defects involving abnormal iodide 

processing).9 Perchlorate is of interest as a drinking water contaminant, because it 

can affect levels of thyroid hormones by inhibiting the transport of iodide into the 

thyroid.10 11 Inhibition of iodide uptake can disturb the normal production of thyroid 

hormones that play an essential role in fetal and post-natal neurodevelopment. 

These hormones also regulate neuropsychological development in children and 

adults. Usually, the body maintains normal production of thyroid hormones even in 

cases of iodide deficiency. However, in pregnant women, severe iodide deficiency can 

result in adverse neurodevelopmental effects in the fetus and newborn. This raises 

the possibility that a similar outcome could be produced by exposure to perchlorate 

in drinking water at sufficient levels and for a sufficient period of time. However, 

to date, human studies on environmental exposure to low levels of perchlorate have 

been inconsistent.12 13 The authors of a 2005 National Research Council study, 

‘‘Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion’’, based their conclusions primarily on 

clinical data collected in controlled settings, particularly those described in an article by MA Greer and his colleagues.14 The NRC found the epidemiological studies 

in human populations to be limited with respect to this question.15 Further research 

is required to determine if there are effects on vulnerable groups such as low birth 

weight or preterm infants, or whether maternal perchlorate exposure (with or without low dietary iodide intake) causes neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants. 

Information continues to be generated about these questions. A series of papers 

between 2009 and 2011 has confirmed that fetuses and infants demonstrate exposure to levels of perchlorate that are associated with maternal levels, albeit not with 

concentrations in their drinking water.16 17 A cross-sectional study of 1641 first trimester pregnant women (including 1002 pregnant women with low urinary iodide 
107 

18 Cao Y, Blount BC, Valentin-Blasini, et al. 2010. Goitrogenic anions, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and thyroid hormone in infants. Environ Health Perspect 118: 1332–1337. 19Steinmaus C, Miller MD, Smith AH. 2010. Perchlorate in drinking water during pregnancy 

and neonatal thyroid hormone levels in California. J Occ Environ Med 52:1217–1224 20 Haddow JE, Palomaki GE, Allan WC, Williams JR, Knight GJ, Gagnon J, O’Heir CE, 

Mitchell ML, Hermos RJ, Waisbren SE, Faix JD, Klein RZ 1999 Maternal thyroid deficiency 

during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological development of the child. N Engl J Med 

341:549–555 21http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/tce/tcewherelfound.html 22http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/tce/tcewherelfound.html 23 Byers VS, Levin AS, Ozonoff DM, et al. 1988. Association between clinical symptoms and 

lymphocyte abnormalities in a population with chronic domestic exposure to industrial solventcontaminated domestic water supply and a high incidence of leukemia. Cancer Immunol 

Immunother 27:77–8 1 24Fagliano J, Berry M, Bove F, et al. 1990. Drinking water contamination and the incidence 

of leukemia: An ecologic study. Am J Public Health 80:1209–1212 25 Cohn P, Klotz J, Bove F, et al. 1994. Drinking water contamination and the incidence of 

leukemia and nonHodgkin’s lymphoma. Environ Health Perspect 102:556–561 

levels) found no relationship between urinary perchlorate and clinical measures of 

serum TSH and freeT4 (Pearce et al. 2010). In another report, perchlorate exposure 

was associated with increased urinary thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) in infants 

with low urinary iodide, although T4 levels were not reduced.18 In a recent ecological epidemiological study in California, researchers were able to show elevated TSH 

levels in infants from perchlorate-exposed communities (defined as drinking water 

levels greater than 5 micrograms/liter).19 The question of whether these hormone 

levels20 result in actual impacts on health and development is unknown and remains an important question for further research. 

Development of new techniques for remediation is also important in this area. In 

a Small Business Innovative Research project, part of our Superfund Research Program, NIEHS is supporting a group that is working to transform a proof-of-concept 

prototype for an online perchlorate detection and remediation system. They will also 

develop a companion field portable prototype for water source spot analysis in the 

field. 

Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a solvent that is widely used for degreasing and cleaning metals. TCE has many other industrial uses as an extraction solvent for organic 

oils, as a reactant in the production of other chemicals, and in the manufacturing 

of fluorocarbons. TCE is widely available as a household cleaner and is found as an 

ingredient in a number of consumer products such as adhesives, rug cleaning fluid, 

paint removers, spot removers, and typewriter correction fluid.21 Due to its widespread use throughout the U.S., TCE is often found as a contaminant in groundwater and drinking water.22 Due to its volatility and low water solubility, TCE can 

readily evaporate from contaminated water posing an additional concern for inhalation exposure. This is particularly important in the enclosed space of the home 

where showering, dishwashing, and laundry activities can increase the potential for 

exposure by both inhalation and absorption through the skin. 

TCE has been a contaminant of concern for decades. In a 1988 report, children 

exposed to a water supply that included TCE contamination, were reported to have 

experienced increased respiratory disease such as bronchitis, asthma and pneumonia.23 In this case, the wells supplying drinking water were contaminated with 

multiple solvents besides TCE, including a related chemical, tetrachloroethylene 

(also known as perchloroethylene or perc). As in this case, human epidemiological 

studies are often complicated by exposures to mixtures, making interpretation of the 

data difficult. 

The link between exposure to TCE and cancer in humans is controversial due, in 

part, to such mixed chemical exposures. However, a statistically significant association between TCE exposure and increased incidence of leukemia among the highest 

group of exposed females was demonstrated in a study conducted in New Jersey24. 

Again, this study was complicated by several uncertainties, including lack of detailed information about the magnitude of individual exposures and a poor understanding of the relative exposure contribution from inhalation and ingestion. A follow-up study of over 1.5 million residents in 75 different towns showed statistically 

significant elevations in total leukemias, child leukemia, acute lymphatic leukemia 

and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in groups of females exposed to TCE concentrations 

greater than 5 ppb.25 A more recent occupational study, published in 2007 and ad-
108 

26Krishnadasan, A., Kennedy, N., Zhao, Y., Morgenstern, H. and Ritz, B. (2007), Nested casecontrol study of occupational chemical exposures and prostate cancer in aerospace and radiation 

workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50: 383?390. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20458 27MDPH 1996. Draft Final Report. Woburn Childhood Leukemia Follow-up Study. Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Boston, Massachusetts. 28http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s180tce.pdf 29Wartenberg, D., D. Reyner and C.S. Scott. 2000. Trichloroethylene and cancer: epidemiologic 

evidence. Environ Health Perspect 108 Suppl 2: 161–76. 30 Chiu WA, Caldwell JC, Keshava N, Scott CS. 2006. Key scientific issues in the health risk 

assessment of trichloroethylene. Environ Health Perspect 114:1445–1449. 31 Caldwell JC, Keshava N, Evans MV. 2008. Difficulty of mode of action determination for 

trichloroethylene: An example of complex interactions of metabolites and other chemical exposures. Environ Mol Mutagen 49:142–154. 32 Ibid 33Scott CS, Chiu WA. 2006. Trichloroethylene cancer epidemiology: a consideration of select 

issues. Environ Health Perspect 114:1471–1478. 34 Ibid 35Kang, J.W., H. Wilkerson, Federico M. Farin, Theodor K. Bammler, Richard Beyer, Stuart 

E. Strand, and Sharon Lafferty Doty. 2010. Mammalian cytochrome CYP2E1 triggered differential gene regulation in response to trichloroethylene (TCE) in a transgenic poplar. Functional 

& Integrative Genomics. 10:417–424. http://www.springerlink.com/content/2x65311062345327/ 

justing for multiple chemical exposures, showed associations between occupational 

exposures to TCE and prostate cancer.26

Following several controversial studies conducted in Woburn, MA, the Massachusetts Department of Health concluded that there was an 8 fold higher risk of leukemia in the group that was exposed in utero, and that this increase may be related 

to the exposure of mothers to solvent-contaminated drinking water during pregnancy27. These studies, too, are complicated by mixed chemical exposures and uncertainties about the levels of exposure. 

Trichloroethylene was listed in the NTP’s Report on Carcinogens as reasonably 

anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity 

from seven studies in humans supported by evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, in which tumors occurred at several of the same sites (especially 

liver) as in humans.28 A contemporary review of epidemiological literature showed 

that TCE was associated with excess incidences of liver cancer, kidney cancer, nonHodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma, with the strongest 

evidence for the first three cancers.29 Nevertheless, as was noted at the time, these 

studies were based on a relatively small number of exposed workers and were confounded by exposure to other solvents and other risk factors. 

More recent studies have been detailed in reviews appearing in the peer-reviewed 

literature in 2006 and 2008.30 31 Much information has emerged about the complexity of the biological effects of exposure to TCE. The understanding of metabolism of TCE has been critical to this process, because for many types of observed 

toxicity, the active agent or agents is actually a mixture of metabolites of the parent 

TCE compound, acting in concert with each other, with the parent, and with other 

co-contaminants typically encountered along with TCE such as 

tetrachloroethylene.32 More recent epidemiology provides further support for associations between TCE exposure and some level of excess risk of kidney cancer, liver 

cancer, and lymphomas, and to a lesser extent, cervical cancer and prostate cancer.33 However, scientists continue to debate the interpretation of these studies, considering such factors as different classifications of lymphomas, differences in data 

and methods for assigning TCE exposure status, and different statistical approaches.34

NIEHS-funded work on TCE is continuing in several programs. The new Northeastern University Superfund Research Center grant is investigating drinking water 

as a possible source for chemical exposures (TCE, phthalates, and others) in Puerto 

Rico. This multidisciplinary project combines hydrogeological, epidemiological and 

mechanistic research on these and other chemicals to determine whether any are 

associated with risk of preterm birth. This Center is also testing a new remediation 

strategy that utilizes solar energy as a means to break down TCE in groundwater. 

The University of Washington’s Superfund Research Center investigates a plantbased remediation strategy (phytoremediation) to break down organic chemicals 

such as TCE and tetrachloroethylene. Their innovative approach utilizes a poplar 

tree that has been genetically modified to express a mammalian gene (CYP2E1) that 

rapidly metabolizes TCE inside the plant.35 The University of Arizona is investigating the geological properties that determine movement of TCE and 

tetrachloroethylene underground and are applying their research at the Tucson 

International Airport Area (TIAA) Superfund complex. Understanding how these 

chemicals migrate and dissolve will aid in the removal or clean-up of these contami-
109 

nants. The NIEHS Superfund program also funds new technologies for remediation 

of TCE contamination, such as the methods under development by a group at the 

University of Kentucky. They have pioneered a new type of nanoparticle filter that 

shows promise for the removal of TCE and other chemicals. 

In conclusion, it is important to remember that determining risk from chemical 

exposures, through drinking water or through any other route of exposure, is a complex, nuanced enterprise. New data are telling us to consider not only dose, but timing of exposure, inherent susceptibility of the exposed individual, and effects of multiple types of exposures when determining risk from a particular chemical. Making 

these regulatory decisions is the responsibility of EPA and our other regulatory 

agency partners. At NIEHS, we are proud of the role we have played and continue 

to play in providing the best possible science to support this incredibly difficult task. 

We are committed to advancing the science to new heights, using the newest tools 

in the biomedical sciences to improve our understanding of the effects of environmental chemicals and to promote effective strategies for exposure reduction and disease prevention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to take your questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Administrator Jackson, how prevalent is perchlorate in the 

drinking water across the Nation? 

Ms. JACKSON. Studies show that perchlorate is in the drinking 

water of between 5 million and 17 million Americans. 

Senator BOXER. My information says it is about 28 States, is that 

about right? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do believe that is right, 26 States and 2 territories, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK. That is in detectable levels, I am assuming, 

above the level that you are looking at setting a standard at? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think that is an accurate assumption, Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. So we are looking at a major problem here. What 

about chromium VI? Do we know that? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is a little bit more difficult, and it is part of 

the reason that our initial intervention with water systems is to 

help them know how to test for it at very low levels. We currently 

regulate total chromium at 100 parts per billion, and chromium VI 

is part of that. But what part of total chromium is chromium VI 

is the operative question. 

Senator BOXER. So that first step of advising drinking water systems to test for chromium VI is, one of the reasons is, I am assuming, is to see how prevalent it is across the country? Is that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. Because the EWG report was a snapshot, and 

doesn’t give us a sense of whether and how often we are going to 

see this contaminant. 

Senator BOXER. Are you having good feedback from the local 

folks? Or are they complaining about the fact they have to test? 

What are you hearing? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the first thing we got were lots of questions. 

I think it is fair to say that putting out a standard testing methodology, we did that in part because we knew people were looking at 

the EWG methodology and didn’t know if they could replicate it. 

So we took a peer-reviewed method and we put it out. I think people were generally grateful for that. I know witnesses on the next 

panel, some of them may take the position we shouldn’t ask or test. 

But I don’t think that is the kind of answer that the American people expect when they are presented with a new contaminant that 

we know science is saying is probably more dangerous than we 

originally believed it to be. 
110 

Senator BOXER. So when do you think you will have the science 

back, the results of these tests back? 

Ms. JACKSON. The results of the tests will come in over the 

course of this year. What we are waiting on now is the peer review, 

the external peer review of our risk assessment of chromium VI. 

This is based on the NTP finding that chromium VI causes cancer 

in our drinking water, which is brand new. We have done a risk 

assessment there. That will take us almost, probably through the 

rest of this year. 

Then what I have said is, we will move as quickly as possible 

after the peer review is done and we are sure we have good science, 

to change the regulations, to change the standards. 

Senator BOXER. Right. But when will you start getting back the 

results of the testing from the various drinking water systems 

across the country? Was that, they are going to start reporting that 

back to you? 

Ms. JACKSON. Right. That is voluntary. They are not under orders to do it. But there are also, of course, purveyors, as we heard, 

who feel a responsibility to make sure they are getting good data 

for their customers. 

Senator BOXER. What do you know now? Do you have any notion 

of how many systems chromium VI is showing up in at higher levels? 

Ms. JACKSON. Because the levels are so much lower, we do know, 

there has been data taken in the past, before the EWG study, that 

shows that there are systems with chromium VI in them. That 

chromium moves between chromium III and chromium VI. Chromium III is not bad. Chromium VI is where we have real health 

concerns, public health concerns. 

Senator BOXER. But you don’t have, as you do with perchlorate 

yet, the number of systems that are impacted or the States that 

are affected by chromium VI? 

Ms. JACKSON. Fifteen percent, Madam Chair, of systems detect 

total chromium. Other studies have shown 30 to 40 percent of systems may have total chromium, because we measure that. What we 

don’t have is how much of that is chromium VI. 

Senator BOXER. But we will have that, I assume, before you 

make your recommendations? 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. That will be important information for 

us to have. Because of course, occurrence and the decision about 

being able to intervene and how to intervene will be based on 

where we are seeing it and why. 

Senator BOXER. Could you comment on the importance of the 

agency using the best available science to develop drinking water 

standards for perchlorate? How are you doing that? What are your 

next steps toward setting a standard? 

Ms. JACKSON. I could not emphasize enough the importance of 

using sound science, the best available science, peer-reviewed 

science. But I also want to say that the difference here, the prior 

Administration actually made a decision not to act on perchlorate. 

The difference here is actually very simple. It is protection of children and protection of mothers who are carrying children. The 

issue here is that extra layer of protectiveness for pregnant women. 

Because changes in thyroid production while a baby is forming can 
111 

have impacts, demonstrated impacts, as we heard Dr. Birnbaum 

say, on their development. Developmental issues in children is a 

huge problem. 

So we are erring on the side of looking for a level that will be 

protective. But we will also do it according to the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. I don’t think there is any 

one of us here who hasn’t said, our children are our future, and 

that is one of the reasons we are here. I just have to say, you make 

me very proud, as Senator from California. Because sometimes we 

get into arguments that are based on philosophy rather than what 

is really happening to people, our people that we are sworn to protect. So I just want to thank you for that. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me go ahead and put the language from the opinion of the 

Court in the record immediately following the request that you 

made to have it be a part of the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Senator INHOFE. That language is: ‘‘If the scientific uncertainty 

is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasonable 

judgment as to whether greenhouses gases contribute to global 

warming, the EPA must say so.’’ 

The other thing, and this was brought up by Senator Barrasso, 

I know that this is on water, this hearing. But I agree with you, 

it is appropriate to bring up anything that is within the jurisdiction 

of this Committee. When he talks about the endangerment finding, 

I think it is very important, since we have Administrator Jackson 

here, I will recall a question that I asked Administrator Jackson, 

this would have been last December, right before I left for Copenhagen, when I asked the question, I have a feeling that we will be 

making an endangerment finding in the next few days. When you 

do, I would like to find out, ask you for the record, what science 

you would be basing it on. Your answer was, ‘‘For the proposal, the 

agency relied in large part on the assessment reports developed by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.’’ That is the U.N. 

IPCC that we have talked about quite often. 

Now, coincidentally, that was precisely the same time that 

ClimateGate came up, that was characterized as one of the worst 

scandals in our recent history. The Daily Telegraph in London said 

this scandal could well be the greatest in modern science. Clive 

Cook, who is quite an environmentalist, in the Atlantic Magazine 

said ‘‘The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, 

their willingness to go to any length to defend a pre-conceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption 

is overpowering.’’ 

I just want to keep getting this into the record, because this 

seems to be the science, in fact, we are writing about this right 

now. I think it is kind of interesting to see the kind of responses 

that we have been getting. I think it is important. We have said 

relying on science, sound science, so many times during the course 

of this hearing, and our previous hearings, that I think that we 

need to be doing that. 
112 

Madam Administrator, let me real quickly just, I would just like 

to have the assurance that as you progress in the health effects of 

chromium VI that you would commit to this Committee that the 

EPA is not rushing the decisionmaking process and will allow for 

a full and complete assessment of the data. It was the California 

water agencies that came out with the report that to treat the chromium to a lower level has a cost of $300 to $500 per acre foot, 

which is actually more than the purchase of the water itself. So 

that is a commitment I would like, that you would take all these 

things into consideration before coming to conclusions. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I commit to following the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, which puts in place a number of reviews, small business 

reviews, HHS consultation, a cost benefit analysis, a technology 

analysis to look at availability, and an impact to small systems. All 

of that is mandated by the law, and it is part of the reason it takes 

up to 2 years for EPA to propose a new standard. 

Senator INHOFE. The following question would take too long to 

answer, so I am going to ask you to answer it for the record, if you 

would. That is, in April 2010, the Inspector General declared or 

concluded that the EPA’s science level was good. Then the standard 

came out in September of the same year, between those months. 

I would ask you, what led to the change in the agency position, 

specifically between those 2 months, on perchlorate? 

Then last, since the time is short and we have good attendance, 

and I am very thankful that we do, one of the things that I want 

to be very careful about is, I know that there is an effort out there 

to start regulating hydraulic fracturing. Not many people realize 

that with the huge reserves that we have, and the United States 

does have the largest recoverable reserves in coal, oil and natural 

gas, of any country in the world, that this particular technology 

that has been used since 1948, of hydraulic fracturing, is something, and I know this, because in 1948, it started in my State of 

Oklahoma, that there has not been a case, a documented case of 

groundwater contamination using hydraulic fracturing. 

If we are to develop the shale, particularly in any of these close 

formations, it has to be done, 100 percent of these recoverable reserves can only become a reality if we are using certain techniques. 

No. 1 would be that of hydraulic fracturing. 

So I would like to have you, and the request I would make of 

you, any response you want to make right now, of course, would 

be fine, but also of any further investigation into that technique, 

I want to be a part of it. Perhaps I can offer some personal expertise from personal experience, from our experience in Oklahoma. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, we look forward to working with you. On 

hydraulic fracturing, we are about to round up our work plan, 

which has gone through peer review and public comment. We expect in the next month or two to have the work plan for our study 

finished. 

I want to make two points on hydraulic fracturing. One is that 

it is not an unregulated activity. Many localities, many States regulate various aspects of the drilling process. One thing I think EPA 

can do to add to the body of knowledge is to determine whether 

there are any holes in that regulatory structure. It is not nec-
113 

essarily Federal regulation that will be needed. It could be, I am 

not prejudging that. 

The second thing I will say is that I think what would give the 

American people comfort, with all that they are seeing about this 

technology, is a knowledge that regulators are not backing away 

from looking at it, but rather are doing everything we can to understand and ensure we have good science. 

Senator INHOFE. That you would take into consideration those 

regulations that come from the States because of the varying applications of this technology from State to State. 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. States are different, geology is different, the number of people and population density are different. 

But there may be a need for a Federal role. We simply don’t know, 

and this study will take a while. 

I have to say for the record on climate change that after there 

were questions raised about one specific line of emails, there were 

numerous peer review studies and people who went back and rereviewed and found that the data and the questions about the data 

and that scientific judgment did not change the basic science that 

man-made emissions are changing our climate, changing our atmosphere, degrading it to the point that it is impacting our planet. 

That is what the endangerment finding says. 

Senator INHOFE. That there are opposing views to your recommendations. 

Ms. JACKSON. I absolutely acknowledge opposing views, including 

yours, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe went over 2 minutes and 25 seconds. But I do have to correct the record, because you quoted me 

as saying it is appropriate to ask about carbon pollution. What I 

said was that this is a hearing on safe drinking water. But everyone has the right to say whatever they want, because it is America 

and we do that. 

But I would hope we would stick to the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Because as we see Dr. Birnbaum sipping on her water, we all need 

to make sure that our kids, our grandkids and our families are 

drinking safe water. 

I also want to make a statement here. We are going to, Senator 

Barrasso and Senator Inhofe, we are going to absolutely look at the 

science of carbon pollution and its impact on our people, on our 

planet. So you will have plenty of time, because we are absolutely 

going to keep up with the science. 

So let me assure you of that, don’t be fearful that we are not 

going to talk about it, because we really are looking forward to 

talking about it and working with Senator Whitehouse, because he 

has some oversight responsibility and he is working on getting us 

going with some hearings. 

So we now are going to call on Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Whether it is the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act, Administrator Jackson, I want to thank you for following the science. You 

have, we have documented hundreds of thousands of lives that 

have been saved, and the impact that clean water and clean air 

have on our economy, how important it is. For my State of Maryland, it goes beyond just health, it goes beyond just the economy. 
114 

The health of the Chesapeake Bay is critically important for the 

quality of life for the people who live in this region. 

So my constituents want you to follow the science. But perhaps 

we need to do a better job in showing how we have connected the 

dots in saving lives and helping our economy and saving iconic features of this Nation for future generations. 

I want to ask you about the chromium VI, both our witnesses 

about the chromium VI. Because as you know, one of the cities that 

was reported was Bethesda, MD. We are being asked, should people who are a certain type take precautions in drinking the water 

that comes out of the tap in Maryland. What is the time line that 

you are looking at in being able to give further direction as to the 

potential risks that are out there in regard to chromium VI? 

Ms. JACKSON. I will speak first about the regulatory time line, 

sir, and that comes straight of the Safe Drinking Water Act. There 

are a number of requirements once we get the risk assessment. We 

have already issued guidance on how to test. We have offered technical assistance. But it could take up to 2 years, I think that will 

be the outside timeframe, for EPA to propose a safe level of chromium VI, to change the standard to include chromium VI. Then 

there is public comment and 18 months to final after that. 

Senator CARDIN. Should we be, are there target groups that 

should be taking precautions? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think the first thing is to test, to understand 

whether or not this one sample that was taken in Bethesda is representative of a problem in the entire system, and if so, why. That 

is the guidance we have already offered. 

I want the people of Bethesda, the people of America, to understand that our risk assessments look at lifetime, years and years 

of exposure to a chemical. So there is not something that is going 

to happen because of 1 day or 2 days. But that if there is real concern out there, there are products available in the marketplace, you 

have to make sure when you buy one of these that it actually 

treats chromium VI, but there are products that are available. 

Senator CARDIN. Dr. Birnbaum. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. The NTP studies not only show that chromium 

VI in drinking water was associated with cancer in both rats and 

mice, and both males and females, but it also showed that the levels that were associated with that cancer were within a factor of 

10 of some of the highest levels that have been reported of human 

exposure, and within a factor of 50 of what we commonly see in 

drinking water, contaminated drinking water supplies. So we are 

not talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of fold 

greater levels. 

So I think there is some concern, I think we really don’t now 

whether there is a susceptible population. That is what some of the 

basic research that we are funding is trying to understand, is what 

makes people especially susceptible. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just ask that if risk factors become 

known that there be transparency and that we, that the public be 

made aware as soon as possible. 

I want to move to coal ash. There is some information out there 

that coal ash is a source of chromium VI. Madam Chairman, I will 

ask unanimous consent to put into the record a report from Earth 
115 

Justice and Physicians for Social Responsibility that relates to that 

issue of coal ash and chromium VI. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.] 

Senator CARDIN. I guess my question is, is EPA looking at coal 

ash as a source of chromium VI in our drinking water? 

Ms. JACKSON. We are looking more broadly at coal ash as a 

source of several pollutants in our drinking water, and in fact have 

proposed and taken over 400,000 comments on regulation of coal 

ash to protect primarily our drinking water supplies. 

Senator CARDIN. I would point out that coal ash that are put in 

landfills, we are concerned about. Coal ash that has been recycled 

and used for useful products, such as cement or, we would hope 

under RCRA, you would have the ability to distinguish between the 

coal ash that is being put at risk in our environment, and those 

that are being recycled. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is absolutely right, Senator. I agree with that 

completely. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Johanns. 

Senator JOHANNS. Madam Chair, thank you. 

Let me if I might, because I mentioned this letter in my opening 

comments, just offer for the record, Madam Chairman, actually it 

is a letter that was written to the Ranking Member and I was copied. It is from Douglas R. Clark, the President of the Metropolitan 

Utilities District. I thought it was a very thoughtful letter. 

Senator BOXER. We will put it in the record, absolutely. 

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.] 

Senator JOHANNS. Great. 

Doctor, if I could start my questioning with you, and bear with 

me, here, because not only am I one of the newest members to the 

Committee, I don’t come here with the scientific background that 

you possess or that the Administrator possesses. So it is going to 

be very important that you visit with me in easily understood terminology. 

To start out with, in response to a previous question by Senator 

Cardin, you talked about some research that had been done relative to chromium VI with animals. Then you talked about factor 

of, and factor of this. I want you to put that in language that I can 

understand. What are you telling me there, that they were exposed 

to exceedingly high levels that we have not found in drinking water 

yet? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. The levels to which the animals were exposed in 

drinking water have been seen in human populations, not in this 

country, for example, but in China, where levels of the same concentration have been used. 

Senator JOHANNS. Have you found any drinking water anywhere 

in the United States that has hit those levels? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I have not seen that in drinking water. But I am 

not an expert in all the drinking waters that have been measured. 

As Administrator Jackson has been saying, they are doing a major 
116 

study now to try to understand the extent of contamination of 

drinking water by chromium VI. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. So what you are saying to me, now in understandable language, is that we exposed or somehow rats and 

mice got exposed to these exceedingly high levels, that at least to 

your knowledge we haven’t found in any drinking water in the 

United States, and they had a problem. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. There are some studies that are within a factor 

of 10 of some levels that have been reported in the United States. 

Senator JOHANNS. When you say factor of 10, 10 times? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Right, that the levels that our animals got were 

10 times higher than some reported levels that people in the 

United States might be drinking. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think it is very important that when you try to 

extrapolate from animal studies to humans, animals have to drink 

a much higher concentration than people do to get the same 

amount into their bodies. That is kind of a difficult concept. But 

when you go to the doctor and he takes a blood sample, he is measuring a certain amount of chemical in your blood. In order to get 

that same amount of chemical in the blood, for example, of a rat 

or mouse, you often have to expose them to a much higher dose. 

Senator JOHANNS. So we have rat or mouse studies out there. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. There are also quite a number of human studies 

that have demonstrated significant, statistically significant associations between chromium in drinking water, high levels of chromium in drinking water, and cancer. Another thing is, at least in 

certain cases, as I mentioned for trichloroethylene, when you use 

water coming out of your tap in an enclosed environment, like a 

shower, or laundry, certain chemicals can become volatilized, and 

then you can inhale them. We have known for over 30 years that 

inhaled chromium VI definitely causes cancer in people. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. Now, Administrator Jackson, you have 

issued a guidance, right, relative to testing of chromium VI? That 

is what this letter referenced. In issuing that guidance, which 

causes people out there to do things, and I am guessing you hope 

they do, and spend money and et cetera, what scientific analysis 

or study did your folks rely upon that would cause you to take that 

step? This is no trick question. I am literally looking for a list of 

the studies they reviewed. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, we can get you a list of information. 

What we did is encourage utilities to monitor. When this chromium 

VI study came out, I met with almost a dozen Senators in the Capitol, many of them from the cities at the top of the list. One of the 

things I committed to was giving technical assistance to utilities on 

how to monitor. So if they got data, it could be the result of a peerreviewed methodology. 

So the methodology and the guidance that we issued was based 

on a peer-reviewed method. It was changed just slightly to make 

it useful to the utilities, but not in a way that we believe required 

another peer review. It was an attempt to make sure people had, 

from the Federal Government, what we believed would be the next 

prudent step. 
117 

Senator JOHANNS. Here is the challenge with what you just told 

me. No. 1, I wonder what those studies are, and I am going to be 

anxious to get that list. So I will request that you provide that to 

all of us here. But No. 2, when you describe the action that you 

are expecting them to take, it is not very simple. This is a utility, 

for example, that complies with, that exceeds all Clean Drinking 

Water standards. If I am not mistaken, they had to go to another 

part of the country to get this tested. 

So I just want to make sure that before we send them off doing 

that we have a sound scientific basis to do that. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I listened for information that can help us do better at protecting 

our citizens. I guess if we stop putting out fires, it would be jobcrushing for firemen. If we stopped writing laws here, it would be 

job-crushing for people working here. 

I take it that neither one of those things would be acceptable and 

that it is hard to understand whether or not there is any benefit 

to putting people, and to regulate at all, because if we didn’t do 

these programs, A, it would hurt health, and B, I guess it would 

be called job-crushing. I don’t get it. Because when these things are 

dressed up in that fashion, we are off the topic. We are not discussing the reality of health damage here. What we are doing is, 

we are simply overriding, saying, look, the EPA scientists, court decisions, they don’t mean anything. These, if we do these regulations, it might help human health, help my kids, my grandchildren, 

everybody else’s in the room have better health than it would be 

in the final analysis. Job-crushing. It may save lives. But if we stop 

regulating, then we would have a net gain. I don’t understand that 

and I must tell you. 

Safe drinking water, Administrator Jackson and Dr. Birnbaum, 

currently allows EPA to allow only temporary monitoring for no 

more than 30 of the potentially hundreds of unregulated contaminants in our drinking water. In light of the success of other rightto-know programs at EPA, could the public benefit from a targeted 

increase in monitoring for unregulated contaminants? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I agree that the public has a fundamental 

right to know what is in their drinking water, what is in their 

water supply. Increased targeted monitoring would be useful in 

helping us to identify emerging threats, things that we don’t know 

about but that we need to know for future generations. It should 

be done in a common-sense fashion, always balancing the burden 

on water systems against the potential threat to human and public 

health. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Birnbaum, do you have any view that 

is different there? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Only that I would agree. I think I certainly, as 

a citizen, as we all are in this room, would very much like to know 

what it is that I am drinking. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The shocking thing is that these programs 

develop almost in reflex action, it is in response to a condition, it 

is in response to the Superfund site that we found up in Massachusetts, created a Jimmy fund and so forth. It is response to crippling 
118 

things for our children and the health of our elderly, those who are 

most fragile. But those things get no credit. The fact that I present 

here for you, in living color, that there are things that help people 

live longer. I hope they will keep on doing what they have been 

doing in the halls of science, because maybe I can reach maturity 

without further failure. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. At a hearing of this Committee 2 years 

ago, I pointed out that only 6 percent of the water systems that 

broke the law were fined or punished by State or Federal officials. 

Don’t object, Senator Inhofe, please. This rate provides little incentive to comply with the law. The head of EPA’s enforcement assured me that a new policy would bring more systems into compliance. 

How many systems have come into compliance since this testimony in 2009? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, because of proactive enforcement by EPA 

and our enforcement program led by Cynthia Giles, back in January 2010, we had almost 9,000 systems that had potential serious 

violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. We have identified only 

6,466 as of January of this year. So we are down by over 3,000 systems, certainly not acceptable, but that is the result of proactive 

work by EPA and by States and local governments to really crack 

down when we find violations of our Nation’s safe drinking water 

requirements. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, I have other questions 

I will submit in writing. But again, I wonder, when I hear statements made here that talk to the particularly dark side of things, 

job crushing, et cetera, I wish we could examine it from the front 

side and say, how many lives would you like to save, how many 

kids would you like not to have difficulties with their health and 

getting to school and being like other kids. We don’t seem to start 

on that side. We start on the side that said, job crushing. Thank 

you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Next we will hear from Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. As 

a physician who has taken care of families all across the State of 

Wyoming for 24, 25 years, I know how important it is to work on 

preventive programs to keep people healthy. I would contend that 

America’s physical health and our fiscal health, both our physical 

health and our fiscal health, are both tied to rulings out of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

So I find it interesting, and I have been trying to stick to the 

topic of water, that from the EPA, inside the EPA that has just 

come out, this is the January 28, this year, 2011, ‘‘Activists hope 

Vermont TMDL sets precedent for weighing climate impacts with 

regard to water quality requirements.’’ This is all about water. 

So when I look at this, Administrator Jackson, considering that 

the EPA has recently allowed TMDLs to be used in consideration 

of effects of climate change, and specifically with the lake in 

Vermont, one of the members of our Committee is from Vermont, 

my question is, how many of these 43,000 TMDLs that the AMA 

lists as approved, because this is one that was approved, how many 
119 

of those that are approved could now be revised in the future to 

consider the effects of climate change? This is what this is all 

about, using climate change as a way to regulate water. We have 

seen it in a State impacting one of our members. When you look 

at a list of how many TMDLs there are by State, people at this 

table all have many more than we have in Wyoming. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, the work on Lake Champlain, that is the 

Lake Champlain TMDL, under the Clean Water Act, this is not a 

Drinking Water Act issue, this is a Clean Water Act discharge of 

contamination issue, continues and has been going on now through 

several administrations. I am not sure that I can confirm that that 

TMDL has been approved, but we will certainly get you that information for the record. 

Let me just say, the goal of the TMDL process, under the Clean 

Water Act, is to lessen and lessen the amount of contamination 

that goes into our water bodies. Lake Champlain is much prized 

and is having trouble with nutrients and algae. It is becoming, 

there are pockets of the lake that are dying out. So your specific 

question about climate is secondary, regardless of what inside the 

EPA says, to the overall goal of the Clean Water Act and the 

TMDL process, which is to protect the quality of our surface water. 

Senator BARRASSO. I guess the question comes down to, can 

something be reopened once there has been something given. That 

is the concern that I am going to continue to raise with the Committee, retroactively going after something that has already been 

granted. 

The President had an executive order stating that agencies 

should consider when taking a look at the costs and benefits, he 

said ‘‘Values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including 

equity, human dignity, fairness, and disruptive impacts,’’ I think it 

is easy to measure unemployment, 9.4 percent, we know that our 

debt has gone up $3 trillion in the last 2 years, we have 3 million 

more unemployed in the last 2 years, we know that burdensome 

regulations do have an impact on jobs, and it is quantifiable. 

My question is, is the language in the President’s executive 

order, does it allow you to basically use anything you want in 

terms of making, saying benefits outweigh the costs? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think the President’s far-reaching executive order 

makes clear that there are some things that are hard to price. Our 

science may be good, but I don’t know how you price the ability to 

try to forestall a child who may not get autism if they are not exposed to contaminated water. I think the language in that order is 

about those things where we can be protective, for a reasonable 

amount of money, to make sure that our children and future generations are not guinea pigs. 

Senator BARRASSO. One of the comments in the President’s order 

included, he said, modify, streamline, repeal regulations, he also 

said expand regulations. Are there additional expansions that you 

are planning? 

Ms. JACKSON. As the President said, and I think our regulatory 

calendar, we have been very transparent with the regulations that 

are coming, many of them as a result of court actions, many because of regulations that were thrown out as illegal, proposed by 

the last Administration. We have a huge Clean Air Act backlog of 
120 

regulations, public health regulations. But the President was very 

clear that, in the State of the Union, that we will be very smart 

about regulation, but we will not back away from creating and enforcing those regulations that have resulted in 92 percent of Americans having clean water, and that our air quality has gotten better, 

even as our GDP has grown 204 percent in this country. 

Senator BARRASSO. Final question. Susan Dudley, George Washington University, talks about 132 economically significant Federal 

Government regulations, meaning that the impact of $100 million 

per year, and that we now have 40 percent more Federal regulations in this period of time under President Obama, than we did 

even under President Bill Clinton. The regulatory work force has 

grown 16 percent in Mr. Obama’s first 2 years in office. We now 

have 276,000 public members, while private employment has continued to fall. 

Do you have any idea how many private sector jobs have been 

lost because of these increased regulations? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I think the recent recession, all people 

agree, was a result of lack of regulation of the housing market that 

caused a collapse of our housing market. So the public health regulations under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, I have not 

seen one of the industries claim that it was those regulations that 

somehow caused the housing market to implode. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 

Administrator Jackson. 

I know you are familiar with the Bull Run Reservoir, which is 

a remote basin in the Cascade Mountains surrounded by old 

growth that humans are not allowed to have access to, and is the 

principal water source for the Portland metro region. You all have 

worked with us to establish a monitoring regime for 

cryptosporidium. That data has been now compiled under that 

monitoring regime and the city will be seeking a variance to establish appropriate circumstances based on that data and this pristine 

water source. 

I believe EPA has now delegated to the State of Oregon responsibility for enforcing that part of the Clean Water Act, and so I believe the city will be applying to the State. So if the State approves 

a variance, will the EPA, does that kind of settle the question, or 

does the EPA then consider the possibility of appealing it or overturning it? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, thank you for your strong interest in protecting that watershed. I still haven’t seen it. My commitment to 

you is that EPA will work to support the State, to work closely 

with the State on the variance determination and help them in 

looking, if there are any conditions, will work with them. We don’t 

expect that we would be working in opposition to them. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. On your next trip to the Northwest, I continue to extend the chance to see that extraordinary 

green infrastructure first-hand, if you will. 

Then turning to chromium VI, the EPA standard, current standard of 100 parts per billion, is quite different than the California 

standard at 6 parts per billion and a proposed California standard 
121 

of 0.2 parts per billion. There is a 5,000 times difference between 

current EPA and proposed California. Do you have any sense 

where EPA’s guidance will end up in this spectrum? 

Ms. JACKSON. It would be irresponsible of me, Senator, to guess 

a number at this point. As you heard, there are a number of, required by law, by the Safe Drinking Water Act, analyses that we 

do. We certainly have to look at cost and feasibility and the particular impact on a smaller system in terms of public health. It is 

too soon for me to tell. 

Senator MERKLEY. Any insights on that, Doctor? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think we need to see what the science is telling 

us. As Administrator Jackson has mentioned, it is currently out for 

peer review, their large assessment of the health effects and actual 

risk assessment. I think when that is completed and the peer review is completed on that, EPA will be able to move forward in 

some decisionmaking. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I appreciate the rigorous scientific 

process that you are going through to try to reach a decision that 

is correct for the health of citizens in our Nation. We do have a real 

interest in it in Oregon, because one of the tests that were in your 

earlier sampling across the Nation was from Oregon that found 

some hexavalent chromium. So folks are kind of in rapt attention 

and interested in the dialog on what is healthy and appropriate. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Just two little pieces of information for the colleagues. We are considering the FAA bill on the floor, and they expect up to three votes around 5 or 6. Just thought people would 

want to know that. That is early evening. 

The other thing is, just wanted to put in the record a document 

from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment from 

California. The last days of the Schwarzenegger Administration, 

they strengthened the proposed drinking water public health goal 

for chromium VI, based on the threats to children and other sensitive populations. I am going to put that in the record without objection. 

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. I now call on Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate your testimony very much. I don’t think there is any 

question at all that we don’t need to prevent contaminants in 

drinking water. Again, I think everyone in this room is 100 percent 

with you. 

Dr. Birnbaum, again, after listening to you, I agree, everyone 

agrees that at some level, chromium VI causes cancer. The problem 

is figuring out what that level is. 

That is so important, because it seems like, well, there is a finite 

amount of money that have to deal with these problems. If we unnecessary ratchet down standards, that becomes very, very expensive to do, there is no money for these other things. 

Now, I don’t know at this point, based on the science, if the cities 

that were investigated, if that is a problem. I can take you right 

now to hundreds of areas throughout the United States that have 

leaky pipes, that every time it rains hard, the sewer overflows. The 

pathogens surrounding there, we would all agree, are a huge prob-
122 

lem. But again, there is no money for that, or there is not enough 

money. We are not doing as good a job as we can. So it is important 

that we get this right. 

Then also the unintended consequences, as you treat for these 

things, the chemicals that you use to get it out, disposing of what 

you are getting out and things like that. 

I have a problem with the methodology. There is a lot of criticism 

from the cities about the Environmental Working Group. Is it true, 

Ms. Jackson, that in Milwaukee that this was just from a tap some 

place within the city? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I believe what the EWG has said is that they 

went to random taps, one in each city that is reported. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Again, and logically, I am an optometrist, I 

am not an expert on these things, but I do understand if you logically really wanted to find out what was going on, you would at 

least sample many sources within the city. 

Then also, as they did, they came back and they sampled the intake area, they sampled within the system and they sampled the 

discharge. Dr. Birnbaum, what do you think about that type of 

methodology? I mean, that makes no sense at all, does it? 

Then again, many of these cities were not notified until they read 

about this in the newspaper, and all of a sudden, they have this 

possible public issue on their hands that was done from a single 

source. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think that the EWG report is what, in scientific 

terms, we would call is hypothesis generating. It proposes that 

there might be a problem. But we need, and the EPA is beginning 

to get that information, we need some kind of statistically based 

sampling of water supplies in this country in order to understand. 

A single sample, you really don’t know where the contamination is 

coming from and even if it is real. So it needs to be repeated. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But you never do things in that manner. The 

problem is, the press takes that and they don’t know what you 

have just stated. So all of a sudden, it becomes gospel. So it is a 

real problem. It is hard for those of us who want to help when you 

have situations like that, it is hard to have confidence in the system as you go forward. 

In the testimony, Oklahoma City asked for the methodology, and 

evidently haven’t been able to obtain it. Do you have a reason that 

you won’t give the methodology to them? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe you are talking about the Environmental 

Working Group’s methodology. She doesn’t—we would have that. 

That is why we decided rather than to do that, to offer a methodology to water systems that could be used that had been peer-reviewed that we believed was State of the science. These are very 

low levels for chromium VI. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I understand. But I think that they should 

have the right, you have essentially implied that something is 

going on, they should have the right to have the methodology that 

you used, I would very much like to see that also. I think the Committee would very much like to see that also, so that we can see, 

your credibility is on the line here. For you to have credibility, for 

us to have faith in what you are doing, I think we need to understand your working process in doing that. 
123 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. Two clarifications, Senator. First, we have 

given a methodology that we believe is the one that should be used 

for systems who want to do their own testing. We have recommended that that is a reasonable next step. 

The second thing I would like to say is, the EWG study alone 

might have been something that we could dismiss. The really important piece of scientific information is that we are in the middle 

of a peer review that shows that chromium VI, which we previously 

thought was not a problem in water, is a problem in water and 

causes cancer. If that is true, that is a game-changing piece of information that will likely mean we have to address it through 

changing our standards. That science was going on before the EWG 

report came out. It has been out there for quite some time. The 

only reason we are not able to finalize it is, we are going through 

a peer review, very important step, to make sure that we have this 

right. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I would like to see, again, the science, well, 

the lack of science, I think, that the working group used, and would 

like a copy of that. I think Oklahoma City is entitled to that also. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think, Senator, that you will be able to ask the 

head of the EWG to provide that for you when he testifies on the 

next panel. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. I will do that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

A couple of points. PG&E, which is our utility, paid millions of 

dollars in a settlement to the residents of Hinkley, this is a stockholder corporation, because there were levels of chromium VI. 

There were huge lawsuits. They settled the matter for hundreds of 

millions of dollars. It was the theme of the Erin Brockovich film. 

So there is a lot of different things out there. 

I just want to say, Dr. Birnbaum, I don’t know what you are 

talking about when you say it poses, you say it is a hypothesisbased study. Does that mean that it poses an important question? 

Is that what that means, a hypothesis-based study? What is your 

definition? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think it means that we have to look further. 

Senator BOXER. Right. So if somebody says it is a snapshot in 

time, would you buy that as what they showed us? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Yes, I think it is. It is a snapshot in time. Whether you would find the same thing if you measured the same tap waters next month, I don’t know. 

Senator BOXER. Well, obviously. It is a snapshot. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Madam Chair? 

Senator BOXER. I think when you say, hypothesis-based, I don’t 

know what that means. I would appreciate it if you, just for my position here, you are saying it is a study that should be taken further. Is that what you mean by that? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I would agree. I think it is a study that raises 

the question, do we have a problem here. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate 

your holding this hearing. 
124 

The point that I think Senator Lautenberg made, and I think Administrator Jackson, you also made, is one that in the case of doing 

cleanup, and trying to extract chemicals or contaminants or things 

from our drinking water, there is a whole job growth side of this. 

Rather than being job killing or job crushing, you actually have an 

entrepreneurship side. I think you mentioned that a little bit. 

We have seen in New Mexico small businesses helping to solve 

drinking water problems. Several companies in New Mexico are actually getting back into manufacturing, making things in America 

here. We had one, Madam Chair, a company testified, the name of 

the company was Miox, testified before this Committee last year 

about their new processes they were getting into. 

So I think it is important to emphasize that probably every State 

around this Committee table has small businesses who are working 

on these kinds of things. I very much appreciate your making that 

point in your testimony. 

One of the questions, and let me just say, to preface this question, New Mexico has some big challenges when it comes to both 

the contaminants you are talking about, the perchlorate and the 

chromium VI. We have seen in this Environmental Working Group 

report chromium VI found at levels above 1 part per billion in Albuquerque, over 20 times the newly proposed standard in California. That was the eighth highest level in the investigation. Perchlorate also found in groundwater monitoring wells at national 

labs in New Mexico, in White Sands Missile Range. 

So the first question I would like to ask Administrator Jackson, 

what are the major sources of chromium in drinking water? How 

did it get there, and what can or should have been done to prevent 

chromium from making its way into drinking water sources? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, as you heard in Dr. Birnbaum’s opening 

statement, there are a number of industrial processes that can 

produce chromium, everything from plating and tanning operations. Also, since chromium is a mineral, it can be found as a contaminant in things like coal, so it will show up in the emissions 

from a coal-fired plant or even potentially an oil-fired plant. 

Then it is also naturally occurring in the ground, like arsenic, 

another pollutant that we regulate and have made tremendous 

progress in your State, Senator, but not without having to work 

with lots of systems and with the State very closely. We are also 

looking at the potential for chromium itself and possibly chromium 

VI to come from fixtures. We don’t have enough information right 

now to know about that. Last but not least, it is very important 

for us to work with the providers to understand whether it comes 

from any of our disinfection activities, whether that actually increases the likelihood of chromium III transforming into chromium 

VI. 

Senator UDALL. When you mentioned that these companies, 

through their various industrial processes, have put out the chemicals, rather than putting the costs over on a utility or some other 

place, it would seem to me that we should return to the principle, 

which I think was the basis of the Environmental Protection Agency, was the polluter pays. So when we have companies that are out 

there that are, as a by-product or however they are putting out 

these chemicals, and they are getting into the groundwater, we 
125 

need to try at every level, from district attorneys to attorneys general to your enforcement effort to make sure that they are held accountable and that the polluters pay the price of this kind of thing. 

Would you agree with that, and does your enforcement operation 

try to move forward with those kinds of actions to send a message 

to the community that, you shouldn’t be doing this, you shouldn’t 

be contaminating drinking water? 

Ms. JACKSON. Congress long ago embraced the idea that the polluter pays, that our groundwater, our drinking water belongs to us, 

and that as much as possible, industry should first prevent pollution and help to clean it up. Where we are now is that we are 

learning about emerging problems. As we do, we have to speak 

straightforwardly to the American people and to industry about the 

need to not take them for granted or look the other way as these 

problems emerge. They are not happy stories. But we don’t get 

healthier by ignoring them. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, and I have other questions that I 

will submit for the record. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I want to put into the record, because Senator Boozman raised 

the issue of cost, which I think is essential, we need to know cost 

benefit. I am going to put into the record an analysis by the National Cancer Institute that found in 2006 the direct cost of cancer 

care in America $104 billion. They have the numbers for 2005, the 

indirect cost in lost time and productivity at $135 billion. So you 

add that together, $240 billion a year. So it is critical, I think, that 

we look at the costs of this from every perspective, the cost benefit. 

I will put that into the record. 

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Now, it is our time to thank you both very much 

for being here, for sharing your morning with us, close to almost 

afternoon. I think that we will be seeing a lot more of both of you 

as we move forward in this Congress. Thank you very much. 

We will call up our next panel, Mr. Ken Cook, the president of 

the Environmental Working Group. Ms. Carrie Lewis, from the 

Milwaukee Water Works, was due to be here. But because of severe 

weather, she was unable to travel to D.C. But she will have her 

testimony delivered by Diane VanDe Hei, executive director, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. 

Mr. Steven D. Lewis, the city manager of the city of Norman, due 

to severe weather, Mr. Lewis was unable to travel. But he is putting his statement in the record, without objection. I know we will 

have him on the phone, is that correct? He cannot be on the phone. 

OK. We will not do that, but I am sure, I will give extra time to 

Senator Inhofe to ask questions. Really, I will. So you will get 10 

minutes for your questions. 

Mr. Chuck Murray, general manager of Fairfax Water. Dr. 

Thomas Burke, associate dean for Public Health Practice and 

Training, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 

I think all of you probably were very interested in the first panel. 

We really do need your expertise. 

So I would ask that we come to order, and those leaving please 

do so quietly. We will start with you, Mr. Cook, president, Environmental Working Group. Welcome. 
126 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH A. COOK, PRESIDENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 

Mr. COOK. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe—— 

Senator BOXER. Excuse me, Mr. Cook. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me just interrupt a moment. Unfortunately, 

I will not be able to stay. I want to hear all of your statements. 

My concern is that you address the unfunded mandate portion of 

this. Those of us who have been mayors of cities, and I would identify with the remarks that were made by Senator Johanns, are very 

much concerned about this. So I would like to have you address 

that during the course of your statements. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I am sorry, Mr. Cook, but we welcome you 

again. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much. Chairman Boxer and Ranking 

Member Senator Inhofe and distinguished members of the Committee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We 

have prepared testimony, of course, to submit for the record. I 

would like to briefly summarize that, and if I may, address some 

of the issues that have come up in the discussion about our study. 

Because they are very important ones. 

Let me start off by saying, we have been working on drinking 

water issues at the Environmental Working Group for a long time. 

The reason we looked into hexavalent chromium, the reason we 

formed the hypothesis, was because we prepared, since 2005, the 

only source that you can go to to look across the country, a very 

large data base, of as many of the drinking water contamination 

reports that have been filed by utilities with State agencies as we 

could assemble. 

When we looked at this set of data, we were able to determine 

that there were a number of cities that had detected and reported, 

as EPA required, total chromium levels. Our hypothesis was that 

if there were a number of cities that had total chromium, it was 

very likely that, if anyone bothered to look, we would find 

hexavalent chromium. 

California is the only State that tests for hexavalent chromium, 

and where they have tested for it, they have fairly routinely found 

it. It is not an accident that California, from a scientific standpoint, 

is driving the Nation in terms of trying to understand the implications of very low levels of ingestion of hexavalent chromium as a 

carcinogen. 

We recognized, and have stated in the study throughout its coverage that this puts water utilities in a bind. This is not a contaminant that they have put into the water. When we briefed the trade 

associations and called in advance to a number of the utilities, we 

made that very clear, that we recognized this was not their problem. Of the utilities we contacted before releasing the study, Norman was the only one, Norman, OK was the only one that really 

understood that this came from geological sources. 

But when we went ahead and submitted the tests, the samples, 

we followed a protocol that was published the day we published the 

report. It is in great detail, we have made it available to everyone. 

We used the methodology that EPA is now recommending for water 

utilities who wish to follow it, because it was approved by the Envi-
127 

ronmental Protection Agency for hexavalent chromium at those low 

levels. The detection limit is .02 parts per billion, which is the 

health guidance that has been recommended most recently for California. 

We were only able to conduct one sample per city in the time and 

with the funds we had available. But there has been new testing 

that has been conducted by a number of the cities and has been 

made public. Here is what they found. In Honolulu, they have reported 11 samples. We don’t know the methodology, at least from 

what is before me, for certain. We don’t know the exact location of 

where the samples were taken. But they found between .32 and 4.0 

parts per billion. We found 2 parts per billion. So some of their 

samples were higher, some were lower. 

In the case of Madison, WI, they found, in four wells that they 

tested, .4 to 1.79 parts per billion. We found in our study 1.58. 

Again, within the range. 

Milwaukee tested and found .19 parts per billion to .22 parts per 

billion. We found .18. Again, right in the middle. In the case of 

Norman, we have not seen the results yet. We look forward to that. 

In the case of Bend, OR, they have also reported results after our 

study. They tested four samples of source water from the Evian facility, .25 to .65. We found .78. That is the only city that has found 

slightly lower levels than the levels we found. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:] 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH A. COOK, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe and distinguished members of the committee: My name is Kenneth A. Cook. I am the President of Environmental Working 

Group (EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization based here in Washington, DC, with offices in Ames, Iowa, and Oakland, California. I thank the members of the committee for holding this important hearing and for the opportunity 

to testify. 

Ensuring safe, accessible drinking water is a core responsibility of the United 

States government. The United States has some of the best tap water in the world. 

But the safety of our drinking water is under constant stress. Among the major 

problems: 

• Infrastructure is crumbling and decaying. 

• Programs to protect source water lack funding. 

• Utilities often can’t afford to test for and treat contamination. 

• Some disinfectants used to treat polluted water actually break down into toxic 

substances. 

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not established drinking water 

standards for so-called ‘‘unregulated contaminants,’’ harmful chemicals such as 

the industrial pollutant hexavalent chromium, the rocket-fuel component perchlorate and the perfluorinated chemicals PFOA and PFOS, active ingredients 

in stain removers and carpet cleaners. 

We believe that Administrator Jackson’s national drinking water strategy has put 

EPA on the right track. The agency has made significant strides over the past 2 

years to improve the quality of our drinking water. We welcome recent EPA moves 

to review water contaminants by class, develop new drinking water safety technologies and use other statutes such as the Federal pesticide law and toxics law to 

ensure water quality. We support EPA’s initiatives to work with states to publish 

State and locality specific water quality data online and to give guidance to utilities 

on how to test and treat water for chromium-6 contamination. But more must be 

done to protect our nation’s drinking water supply. 

Since 2005 the Environmental Working Group has published a searchable online 

data base of tap water quality called ‘‘The National Drinking Water Data base.’’ Our 

data base synthesizes more than 20 million public water quality records. It allows 

citizens to look up water quality reports by zip code so they can learn more about 

regulated and unregulated water contaminants in their local water supply. The 
128 

most recent edition of EWG’s National Drinking Water Data base was published 

jointly in December 2009 with The New York Times’ award-winning series ‘‘Toxic 

Waters,’’ which has done much to educate Americans about the State of the nation’s 

water quality. 

I. EWG’S CHROMIUM-6 REPORT

On December 20, 2010, the Environmental Working Group released a study entitled ‘‘Cancer-Causing Chromium-6 Pollution in U.S. Tap Water,’’ which reported the 

results of our laboratory tests of drinking water from 35 cities. EWG conducted 

samplings in 35 cities whose annual water quality reports indicated significant total 

chromium pollution. Unfortunately, the total chromium measure doesn’t tell residents what they most need to know, because the metallic element comes in several 

forms, including trivalent chromium, a mineral essential to health, and the toxic 

pollutant chromium-6, also known as hexavalent chromium or the ‘‘Erin Brockovich 

chemical,’’ for her storied campaign to uncover industrial dumping. 

The Federal National Toxicology Program has concluded from animal testing that 

the pollutant shows ‘‘clear evidence of carcinogenic activity.’’ An EPA draft review 

called chromium-6 in tap water ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’’ 

Because few jurisdictions test specifically for chromium-6, EWG engaged volunteers to collect samples, using a standard protocol, from unfiltered taps in homes 

or in public buildings. We sent these samples to a nationally recognized laboratory. 

The tests found toxic hexavalent chromium in the water supplies of 31 cities, serving more than 26 million Americans. 

On December 31, 11 days after we released our report, California lowered its 

chromimum-6 public health goal from 0.06 to 0.02 parts per billion (ppb). Our chromium-6 readings in all 31 cities were higher than California’s new proposed safe 

limit. This is troubling. 

In fact many members of this committee represent states where we found high 

concentrations of chromium-6. Among them: 

• Riverside, CA–1.69 ppb 

• San Jose, CA –1.34 ppb 

• Los Angeles, CA–0.20 ppb 

• Sacramento, CA–0.16 ppb 

• Omaha, NE–1.07 ppb 

• Albuquerque, NM–1.04 ppb 

• Bend, OR–0.78 ppb 

• Bethesda, MD–0.19 ppb 

• Syracuse, NY–0.12 ppb 

• Buffalo, NY–0.07 ppb 

The highest level detected was 12.9 ppb in Norman, Oklahoma. 

This study was meant to be a ‘‘snapshot’’ of chromium-6 contamination in the 

country, not a comprehensive assessment of each community’s water supply. More 

comprehensive tests should be undertaken immediately. The number of Americans 

drinking tap water contaminated with chromium-6 is likely far higher than indicated by EWG’s tests. At least 74 million people in nearly 7,000 communities drink 

tap water polluted with total chromium, according to EWG’s 2009 analysis of water 

utility tests from 48,000 communities in 42 states. We don’t know how many of 

those communities have water polluted with chromium-6. We should find out. People have a right to know whether they are being exposed to this dangerous substance. 

II. EPA’S CURRENT TOTAL CHROMIUM STANDARD DOES NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT

PUBLIC HEALTH FROM CHROMIUM-6 EXPOSURE

EWG’s report is the broadest publicly available survey of chromium-6 to date. In 

California, the only State that requires testing for chromium-6, water systems have 

detected it in tap water supplied to more than 31 million residents. Chromium-6 is 

commonly discharged from steel and pulp mills and metal-plating and leather-tanning facilities. Naturally occurring chromium-6 can enter water supplies through 

erosion of soil and rock. 

The EPA has set a legal limit of 100 parts per billion of total chromium to protect 

against ‘‘allergic dermatitis’’ (skin irritations or reactions). Total chromium is composed primarily of toxic hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, and the necessary 

mineral trivalent chromium, which regulates glucose metabolism. Our tests found 

that in most cases, the largest component of total chromium was the hexavalent 

form. 

Yet the EPA’s legal limit for total chromium is 1,700 times higher than California’s proposed public health goal for hexavalent chromium, and 5,000 times higher 
129 

than the most recent proposed public health goal issued by California. This disparity shows that the total chromium regulation is out of sync with the established 

science on the public health risks of chromium-6 exposure. 

The California Environmental Protection Agency establishes drinking water public health goals based on public health considerations using the best available data 

in the scientific literature. Setting a public health goal is the first step toward establishing a statewide enforceable drinking water limit. In response to the National 

Toxicology Program’s finding that chromium-6 in drinking water shows ‘‘clear evidence of carcinogenic activity’’ in lab animals, California proposed a public health 

goal of 0.06 parts per billion. The California EPA asserted: ‘‘The findings of available human, animal, genotoxic, and toxicokinetic studies all indicate that 

hexavalent chromium is a possible human carcinogen by the oral route.’’ On December 31, 2010, California lowered its public health goal for hexavalent chromium to 

0.02 ppb, based on research on ‘‘early in life exposures and cancer potency’’ of chromium-6. 

The US EPA’s most recent analysis of chromium-6 toxicity, released in draft form 

in September 2010, cites significant cancer concerns linked to exposure to the contaminant in drinking water. It highlights several disorders reported in animal studies, including anemia and damage to the gastrointestinal tract, lymph nodes and 

liver. 

Chromium-6 is particularly dangerous to people whose stomachs are insufficiently 

acidic. They appear to have limited availability to convert hexavalent chromium to 

trivalent chromium. 

Children are also at heightened risk. According to the National Academy of 

Sciences, the developing organs of children and infants are more vulnerable to damage from chemical exposures and children are less able to excrete dangerous chemicals. 

III. EPA SHOULD RESIST INDUSTRY’S WELL-DOCUMENTED EFFORTS TO PREVENT SPECIFIC

REGULATION OF CHROMIUM-6

Many Americans are familiar with chromimum-6 because of the film ‘‘Erin 

Brockovich,’’ and Ms. Brockovich’s tireless work to expose Pacific Gas & Electric 

Co.’s (PG&E) dumping of the chemical into the groundwater around the small California community of Hinkley. In 1996, thanks in large part to Ms. Brockovich’s investigation, Hinkley residents won a $333 million settlement from the giant utility. 

Less heralded is the case of the residents of Kettleman City, Calif., who settled with 

PG&E for $335 million in 2006. The machinations during this lawsuit brought to 

light the utility’s efforts to cover up health risks associated with chromium-6. 

The Kettleman story began nearly 25 years ago in China’s Lioang Province, when 

researchers found an increased risk of stomach cancer and a ‘‘significant excess of 

overall cancer mortality’’ among villagers whose drinking water was polluted by a 

chromium ore processing facility. Ten years later the Journal of Occupational and 

Environmental Medicine published a paper that was purportedly written by the 

same Chinese research team and that reversed the earlier conclusion. Scientists and 

regulators, including EPA officials, cited the paper in research and safety assessments. However, investigations by EWG and the Wall Street Journal in 2005 disclosed that a consulting firm named ChemRisk, hired by PG&E, had conducted its 

own analysis of the Chinese data and deliberately excluded reports of cancer cases 

that pointed to an association with chromium-6. ChemRisk submitted the paper to 

the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine without disclosing PG&E’s 

involvement. In 2006, the journal retracted the paper, citing undisclosed ‘‘financial 

and intellectual input to the paper.’’ For decades, industry has worked to prevent 

regulation of chromium-6 and it’s time for the government to act to protect public 

health—especially the health of vulnerable populations like children and pregnant 

women—from this cancer-causing chemical. 

IV. EPA SHOULD ESTABLISH A SPECIFIC DRINKING WATER STANDARD FOR

CHROMIUM-6

Immediately after we released our 35-city report on December 20, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson told a bipartisan group of 10 Senators, including members 

of this committee, that the agency would complete a scientific review of the chemical 

by summer and might consider mandating cities to test for chromium-6 in tap 

water. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your letter with Senator Feinstein, to the Administrator urging EPA to act quickly to decide whether to issue a health advisory 

on chromium-6 under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

The EPA reacted swiftly with a four-point plan to help water utilities assess chromium-6 pollution and a pledge to set a nationwide safety standard. Administrator 
130 

Jackson announced that EPA would provide technical assistance to the 31 chromium-6 communities listed in our report. Earlier in January, EPA implemented 

point two of its plan and issued enhanced guidance detailing where and how often 

water utilities should collect samples and outlining protocols for laboratory testing. 

We support EPA’s quick action in light of our report’s findings. Three cities we 

sampled have conducted their own tests and found similar results, and many water 

utilities across the country are assessing potential chromium-6 pollution in their 

drinking water. We will continue to press for more protective Federal standards for 

chromium-6 in drinking water, and we look forward to working with the agency and 

water utilities to address this health concern. 

As I mentioned, we estimate that at least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink 

chromium-polluted tap water, much of it likely in the form of hexavalent chromium. 

EPA’s legal upper limit for total chromium, 100 parts per billion, was set nearly 20 

years ago and is wholly inadequate. Furthermore, EPA has not set a new drinking 

water standard under the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2001. Three-quarters of 

the current standards date from 1991 and 1992 and have not been modernized. 

Since 1996, EPA has reviewed toxicity and water pollution data for 138 unregulated 

chemicals but declined to set a safe and legally enforceable drinking water standard 

for any of these chemicals. 

It’s important that EPA move quickly to set an enforceable drinking water standard for chromium-6 and require water utilities to test for it. However, the past lack 

of action has shown that when it comes to setting enforceable drinking water standards the agency often needs a legislative push. Therefore, we strongly support Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein’s legislation, S. 79, which would establish a 

timeline for EPA to set a health advisory and specific chromium-6 drinking water 

standard. 

V. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING FOR SOURCE

WATER PROTECTION AND FOR WATER UTILITIES TO CONDUCT NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES, WATER TESTING AND TREATMENT

The best way to remove chromium-6 from the nation’s drinking water is to keep 

it out in the first place. Environmental Working Group strongly supports increased 

investment in source water protection, including the reauthorization and full funding of the drinking water and clean water State revolving loan funds. 

But where hexavalent chromium already contaminates local water supplies, no 

one-size-fits-all solution exists. Some utilities may be able to respond adequately to 

high levels of hexavalent chromium in finished tap water by modifying disinfection 

procedures. For instance, chlorine, widely used as a tap water disinfectant, can 

cause trivalent chromium to become the hexavalent form. Another common disinfectant, chloramine, does not trigger this effect. Other utilities might be wise to 

shift to other water sources, drawing less water from more contaminated sources. 

Technologies effective for reducing hexavalent chromium in tap water include membrane filtration by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis, anion exchange, reduction followed by coagulation and precipitation, and absorption. Over the past year, the city 

of Glendale, California, for example, has been evaluating two new hexavalent chromium treatment and testing facilities. Research conducted at these facilities and 

around the country can help local utilities address chromium-6 contamination. 

Cleaning up hexavalent chromium pollution has its costs. But ignoring it is not 

an option. Cities like Norman and Milwaukee deserve credit for following up 

promptly on our findings. The next step is to find ways to minimize contamination 

that could damage human health. 

We also strongly support efforts to address other so-called ‘‘unregulated contaminants,’’ such as the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate and the perfluorinated chemicals PFOA and PFOS. It’s time for us to catch up to the science and to regulate 

these known drinking water contaminants. 

But here’s the bottom line: our nation’s water utilities need help. We must provide 

them with the necessary funding for infrastructure upgrades, water treatment technologies, and testing protocols to protect our drinking water supply. Our health 

—and especially our children’s health—depends on their doing the job right. And in 

these stark fiscal times, protecting our nation’s public drinking water supply should 

be a top funding and oversight priority for Congress. 

REFERENCES

ACC (American Chemistry Council). 2010. Letter to the Office of Environmental 

Health Hazard Assessment. June 17, 2010. 
131 

AWWARF (American Water Works Association Research Foundation, now the 

Water Research Foundation). 2004. Occurrence Survey of Boron and Hexavalent 

Chromium. 

Anderson SA, Valentine JL, Fernando R, Sparacino CM, Collins B. 2002. Chromium accumulation in the tissues of rats, mice and guinea pigs exposed to sodium 

dichromate dihydrate in drinking water for twenty-one days. Toxicol Sci 66(Suppl 

1): 138. 

Beaumont JJ, Sedman RM, Reynolds SD, Sherman CD, Li LH, Howd RA, et al. 

2008. Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to hexavalent chromium in 

drinking water. Epidemiology 19(1): 12–23. 

Borneff J, Engelhardt K, Griem W, Kunte H, Reichert J. 1968. [Carcinogens in 

water and soil. XXII. Mouse drinking water experiments with 3,4-benzopyrene and 

potassium chromate]. Arch Hyg Bakteriol 152(1): 45–53. 

Brandt-Rauf P. 2006. Editorial retraction. Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to hexavalent chromium in water. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 

48(7): 749. 

CDPH (California Department of Public Health). 2009. Chromium-6 in Drinking 

Water Sources: Sampling Results. California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA. February 17, 2009. Available at: www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/ 

drinkingwater/Pages/Chromium6sampling.aspx. 

Costa M. 1997. Toxicity and carcinogenicity of Cr(VI) in animal models and humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 27(5): 431–442. 

Donaldson RM, Jr., Barreras RF. 1966. Intestinal absorption of trace quantities 

of chromium. The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 68(3): 484–493. 

Donohue JM, Lipscomb JC. 2002. Health advisory values for drinking water contaminants and the methodology for determining acute exposure values. Sci Total 

Environ 288(1–2): 43–9. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Hazard summary for chromium 

compounds. Available at: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/chromium.html. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Six-Year Review 1 of Drinking 

Water Standards. EPA 815–F–03–001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. July 2003. Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater/review/ 

firstlreview.html. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Six-Year Review 2 Health Effects 

Assessment: Summary Report. EPA 822–R–09–006. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water. October 2009. Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater/review/ 

secondlreview.html. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Toxicological Review of 

Hexavalent Chromium (CAS No. 18540–29–9) (External Review Draft). EPA/635/R– 

10/004A. September 2010. Available at: oaspub.epa.gov/eims/ 

eimscomm.getfile?pldownloadlid=498712. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. Drinking Water Contaminants. 

Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html. 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2005. Chrome-Plated Fraud: How PG&E’s 

scientists-for-hire reversed findings of cancer study. Available at: www.ewg.org/ 

erinbrockovichchromium6lawsuit/. 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2006. Letter to JOEM. Available at: 

www.ewg.org/node/21952. 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2009. EWG’s Drinking Water Quality 

Analysis and Tap Water Data base. Available at: http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/ 

home. 

Finley BL, Kerger BD, Katona MW, Gargas ML, Corbett GC, Paustenbach DJ. 

1997. Human ingestion of chromium (VI) in drinking water: pharmacokinetics following repeated exposure. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 142(1): 151–159. 

Gwiazda R. 2008. Review of the document ‘‘Public Health Goal for hexavalent 

chromium in drinking water’’ Prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 

January 2008: Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. 

Available at: www.oehha.org/water/phg/pdf/CrlGwiazda090909.pdf. 

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1990. Chromium and chromium compounds. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monogr Eval 

Carcinog Risks Hum 49:49–214. 

Kerger BD, Paustenbach DJ, Corbett GE, Finley BL. 1996. Absorption and elimination of trivalent and hexavalent chromium in humans following ingestion of a 

bolus dose in drinking water. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 141(1): 145–158. 
132 

Lai H, McNeill LS. 2006. Chromium redox chemistry in drinking water systems. 

J Environ Eng 132(8): 842–851. 

McCarroll N, Keshava N, Chen J, Akerman G, Kligerman A, Rinde E. 2010. An 

evaluation of the mode of action framework for mutagenic carcinogens case study 

II: chromium (VI). Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 51(2): 89–111. 

NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and 

Children. Washington DC: National Academy Press. 

NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Task Ahead. Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog/12528.html. 

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2007. Actions on Draft NTP Technical Reports Reviewed by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Technical Reports Review 

Subcommittee, May 16–17, 2007, Minutes available at: ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/ 

TRRSlMInslMayl2007lbs8rgMW[1]1.pdf. 

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2008. NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Dichromate Dihydrate (CAS No. 7789– 

12–0) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies). NTP TR 546, 

NIH Publication No. 07–5887: National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of 

Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http:// 

ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/546lweblFINAL.pdf. 

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2009. Draft Public 

Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water: Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 

California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: www.oehha.ca.gov/water/ 

phg/pdf/Cr6PHGdraft082009.pdf. 

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2010. Peer Review 

Comments regarding 2001 Draft Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium in 

Drinking Water. Available at: www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/chrom-2010.html. 

USGS (United States Geological Survey). Mineral Commodity Summaries: Chromium. January 2010. 

Zhang JD, Li S. 1997. Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to 

hexavalent chromium in water. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 39(4): 315–319. 

Zhang JD, Li XL. 1987. [Chromium pollution of soil and water in Jinzhou]. 

Zhonghua yu fang yi xue za zhi [Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine] 21(5): 

262–264. 

ATTACHMENT A 

Cancer-Causing Chromium-6 Pollution in U.S. Tap Water, Environmental Working Group (December 20, 2010) (available at http://static.ewg.org/reports/2010/ 

chrome6/html/home.html) 
133 

.. .. I I II r 

,orgicll ro in iu m6 -i n- rap- water 
134 

http://www . ewg .org/ch ro m iu m 6-i n -tap-water 

Contents 

Background 

i. Executive Summary ........................ , ............. , .............. ,., ........ ,. 4 

ii. Study Findings.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. ... .. ....... 8 

iii. Industry Tactics .. , ...................... , ................ , .............. , .......... , .11 

iv. Government Failings ................... , ........................ ' . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. 15 

v. Progress in California ................................. , . . ... . ........................ 17 

vi. Methodology ..................... ,.............................................. . .19 

vii. References ................... , .. , ......................................... , .. , ..... 21 

This PDF IS QR Mobile Interactive 

18 ~ _ i 

I!J .. ~ .. 

Scan this QR code with your web and camera featured smart phone and be taken to the online report for Cancer 

Causing Chromium 6 in U,S, Tap Water. 

Download QR Reader for your Smartphone: 

www.i-nigma.mobi 

Chromium-6ls Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 2 
135 

Acknowledgments 

Principal Author: Rebecca Sutton, PhD 

Editors: Jane Houlihan, Renee Sharp & Nils Bruzelius 

Databases & Mapping: Chris Campbell & Sean Gray 

Web Design: Dean Clark 

This report was made possible by the support of the John Merck Fund, the Johnson Family Foundation, 

the Park Foundation and the Turner Foundation. 

EWG thanks Erin Brockovich and Bob Bowcock for their continued efforts to protect public health, and 

Max Costa (New York University School of Medicine) for his review of our report. 

Interns Jacob Booher, Marisa Evanouski, Samara Geller and Kimi Schell made significant contributions 

to this research. We also thank EWG contacts nationwide who made this study possible by volunteering to 

collect water samples for analysis. 

Chromium·S Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 3 
136 

http://www . ewg. 0 rgl c h rom i u m 6 -i n -tap-w ate r 

Executive Summary 

'rap water from 31 of35 U.S. cides rested contains hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6), the cardnogenic "Erin Brockovich chemical," according to laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental \'7orking Group (EWe). 'Ihe highest levels were detected in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, 

Calif 

Despite mounting evidence of the contaminant's toxic effects, including a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft toxicological review that classifies it as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans" when 

consumed in drinking water, the agency has not set J legal limit for chromium-6 in tap water and docs 

not require water utilities to test for it. Hexavalent 

chromium is commonly discharged Irom steel and 

pulp mills as well as metal-plating and leather-tanning 

facilities. It can also pollute water through erosion of 

soil and rock. 

The National Toxicology Program has found that 

hexavalent chromium in drinking water shows clear 

evidence of carcinogenic activity in laborarory animals, increasing rhe risk of otherwise rare gastrointestinal tumors (NTP 2007, 200S). In response to this 

study and others, California officials last year proposed 

setting a public health goal for chromium-6 in dtinking water of 0.06 parts per billicl11 (ppb). 'Illis is rhe 

first step toward establishing a statewide enf'orct:ablc 

limit (OEHHA 2009). 

Levds of the catcinogen in 2'> cities tested by 

EWG were higher than Californie's proposed public 

health goaL '[;,1' water from Norman, Okla. (population 90,000) contained more than 200 times California's proposed safe limit. 

.02 ---------------

.15 

.05 

.0 

Average 

chromium-6 

level in EWG 

testing* 

Proposed 

safe limit** 

*Geometric average based on level of chromium~6 measured 

in 35 U.S. cities and a statistical estimate for the fOUf cities 

where no chromium-6 was detected. The lowest level detectable by Ihese tests is 0.02 ppb. ftlr the purpose of calculating 

the nationwide average, the concentration of cllfomium~6 in 

these four cities was assumed to be 0.01 ppb, or half of the 

lowest detectable level. 

ti"Proposed safe limit" is California EPA's proposed public 

health goal (OEHHA 2(09). 

Chromium·6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 4 
137 

Top Five Chromium-contaminated Cities Tested by EWG 

City 

Oklahoma 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

~"""~-,,~,,,,_Californla 

Madison, Wisconsin 

San California 

City Population 

91'9.000 

Hexavalent Chromium Contamination 

Level in Tap Water 

Millions of Americans drinK chromium-contaminated water 

EWG's investigation is the broadest publicly available survey of hexavalent chromium to date. 1he 31 

cities with chromium,polluted tap water draw from utilities that collectively serve more than 26 million 

people. In California, the only state that requires testing for hexavalent chromium, water utilities have dc, 

tected the compound in tap water supplied to more than J 1 million people, according to an EWe analysis 

of data from the state water agency (EWe 2009). 

Ewe's tests provide a one,time snapshot ofchromium,6levels in 35 cities. But chromium pollution is a 

continuous, ongoing problem, as shown by the annual water quality reports that utilities must produce under 

!cderallaw. Ovet the years, nearly all of the 35 cities tested by Ewe regularly repon finding chromium (in the 

[,mn of total chromium) in their water despite using £1r less sensitive testing methods than those used by E\VG 

'Ille total number of Americans drinking tap water contaminated with rhis compound is likely far higher 

than is indicated by EWe's tests, At least 74 million people in nearly 7,000 communities drink tap water 

polluted with "total chromium," which includes hexavalent and other fl)rmS of the metal, according to 

EW(;\ 2009 analysis n[water utility tests from 48,000 communities in 42 states (EWe 2009). 

11,e EPA has set a legallimir in tap water for total chromium of 100 ppb to protect against "allergic 

dermatitis" (skin irritation or reactions), Measures of total chromium include the essential mineral trivalent 

chromium, which regulates glucose metabolism, as well as the cancer-causing hexavalent form. Preliminary 

E\XlG-comnlissioncd water tests found t.hat in most cases, the majority of the total chromium in water was 

in the hexavalent form, yet the EPA's legallirnit for rotal chromium is 1,700 times higher than California's 

proposed public health goal for hexavalent chromium. 'This disparity could indicate significant cancer risk 

for communities drinking chromium-tainted tap water. 

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 5 
138 

http://www . ewg. 0 rg/ch rom i u m6-in -tap-water 

The EPA's new analysis of hexavalent chromium toxicity, released in draft form in September 2010 (EPA 

2010a). cites significant cancer concerns linked to exposure to the contaminant in drinking water. It highlights health effects documented in animal studies. including anemia and damage to the gastrointestinal 

tract, lymph nodes and liver. 

Industry deception delayed protections 

The plight of the cancer-stricken residents of Hinkley, CaliE. who in 1996 won a $333 million settlement from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for contaminating their tap water with hexavalent chromium. was 

the basis of the 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich," starring Julia Roberts. 

Subsequently. a 2005 Wall Street Journal investigation and a separate EWG report based on court documents and depositions from a similar lawsuit in Kettleman City. CaliE revealed that PG&E had hired 

consultants to publish a fraudulent analysis of cancer mortality in Chinese villagers exposed to hexavalent 

chromium. in an attempt to disprove the link between the chemical and cancer. The study was published 

in the respected Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. and scientists and regulators - including the EPA - cited the fraudulent article in research and safety assessments. The journal retracted the 

paper in 2006 in response to EWG's request for corrective action. 

California officials then conducted a rigorous re-assessment of the study data, finding a statistically significant increase in stomach cancer among the exposed. Their analysis is consistent with laboratory evidence 

from the National Toxicology Program and others showing that hexavalent chromium in tap water causes 

gastrointestinal tumors in multiple species. 

Industty has sought for more than six years to delay state-mandated regulation of hexavalent chromium 

in tap water in California. Aerospace giant Honeywell International Inc. and others have stalled the adoption of the advisoty public health goal by pressing for additional external scientific peer review. California's 

Department of Public Health can neither set nor enforce a mandatoty tap water standard for hexavalent 

chromium until the goal is finalized. 

Recommendations 

At least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink chromium-polluted tap water. much of it likely in the 

form of cancer-causing hexavalent chromium. Given the scope of exposure and the magnitude of the potential risk. the EPA should move expeditiously to establish a legal limit for the chemical in tap water and 

require water utilities to test for it. 

Chromium-6ls Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group & 
139 

The state of California must establish a strong standard for hexavalent chromium in tap water immediately. A truly health-protective hexavalent chromium regulation will reduce the cancer risk for Californians 

and serve as a model for the nation. With an enforceable standard already six years past the statutory deadline and the health of millions of Californians at stake, the state cannot move too quickly. 

Chromium-6ls Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 7 
140 

h Up :l/www.ewg. 0 rglch [0 m i u m 6 -in-tap· w ate [ 

." .. ,n .. ,,,, Found in Across the U,S, 

cornmlssioned by the Environmental Working C;roup (E\x!G) detected carcinogenic hexavalent 

chromium in 31 of35 tap samples 89 collected in across the country. Ewe; 

fJ.rgcl'cd a oflargc citks and some smaller ones testing by local utilities had previously derected pOIentially significant amounts of "total chromimn:' lhis specific measurement includes 

chromium, aD essential minerai that regulates glucnse metabolism, well the cancer-causing 

form, also cailed chromium-G, 

(or chromium-6) gets into 

supplies being 

discharged from steel and 

pulp mills as well metaland leather-tanning 

bcilitics. It can also pollute 

through erosion of soil 

and 

In Calil;,rnia, [he only 

that requires 

hexavalent chromium, 

tht: EnvironmC"l1tal 

Protection Agency (C;lli-

/()rniJ EFA) bas pro· 

posed a "public healdl 

goaL" or Above figure: Slack dots indicate EWG's test sites and measured hexavalent chromium concentra~ 

::;,lfc concentration, of 

0.06 parts per billion 

Chromiurn·6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 8 
141 

risk. However) the testing Cllromillm-6 is II commOlllloliutanl ill CaHfomililap water 

protocols than those 

of the indep,'ncient 

identify 

Chrnmium-6 levels in tap 

dties teslcd by exceeded 

l1e"ltl1 goal. (Once goal is established, state 

rofS plan to proctss to set a 

legally upper limit.) 

EWG measured concentrations of hexavalent chromium in four California cities 

- los "'ngeles, Riverside, Sacramento and San Jose. Size 01 red dots reflects the 

Nationally. samples trom 

chromium higher than the safe limit proposed in Cali[()rnia. 

For total chromium, Protection Agency has limil of 100 ppb in tap 

water to or reactions). California's legal limit lOtal 

of Calit')[llia's lap testing ddta indicates CllI:Ul!1l1ll11-l) constitutes 

half of the total chromium round in most water supplies. a finding timher supported by 

llalelOllWf(]e survey. ;\ proprietary 2004 study by the Water Research Foundation for 

data from 

members, including "'\\'atcT utilities, found !1c.Ka'·aH;m chromlum contamination of tap \vater more 

common for using groundwater \veHs than for those drawing 

100 ppb lcgallimit for total chromium more rhan ] ,(iOO 

posed public health goal t()f hexavalent chromium. could mC;.Hl 

(A\\/WARF 2004). 'Ihe 

higher than the California's procon1munities \vith higher 

nations of total CHHHHHHH tace cancer risk well "bove the typically considered 

Chromium~6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group !:I 
142 

http://WWW . ewg. 0 rgl c h ro m I u mB· i n ·tap· wale r 

Chromium-Slevels in 25 cities' tap water exceed sale limit proposed by California officials' 

Chromiurn·6ls Widespread In US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 10 
143 

Industry Tactics 

intl .. ",tlru falsified of "Erin Brockovich chemical" 

Chromium is a naturally occurring meral used in steel manufacturing, leather ranning, welding and the 

production of dyes, pigments and alloys. It is often used to plate metal surfaces and is a major component 

of pesticides used in pressure-treated lumber i,)r outdoor decks, play sets and other strnctures (one form 

was banned in 2005). Chromium was also widely used as an anti-corrosive agent in industrial cooling towers until the federal governmenr banned the practice in 1990 (EPA 2000). lr is an essential componenr in 

making stainless sreel, its most common use, and super-alloys (USGS 20 to). 

The toxic form of chromium is not in water 

Chromium has multiple forms, and the two most common have dramatically different consequences for 

human health. Trivalent chromium (chromium-3) is a nutrient essential to sugar and lipid metabolism, but 

hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) is a dangerous toxin. Since 1990, international health authorities have 

identified it as a known human carcinogen when inhaled (IARC 1990), and a growing body of evidence has 

linked hexavalent chromium in drinking water to stomach and gastrointestinal cancers. 

In 1992, the EPA set the legal limit in tap water for total chromium - a mixture of hexavalent and 

trivalent chromium at 100 ppb to protect against skin reactions known as "allergic dermatitis" (EPA 

2010b). However, a safety standard that lumps b·c!s of a toxic carcinogen with a nutrient necessary for 

health is like grouping arsenic and vitamin C. 

Recent California Department of Public Health tests of drinking water detected hexavalent chromium in 

2.208 of more than 7,000 water sources (CDPH 2009). A review of EWe's tap water quality database indicates that more than 7/:i, million Anlcricans may be exposed to total chromiUll1 through tap water, and more 

than l.3.7 million Californians may be exposed to hexavalent chromium (E'-""G 2009). 

New evidence overtl.llTls claims that chromil.lm-6 is harmless 

Various conditions can cause trivalent chromium to change to hexavalent chromium and vice versa. "The 

widely used tap water disinfectant chlnrine, tt" insrance, can cause trivalent to become hexavalent (Lai 2006). 

Highly acidic conditions can cause hexavalent to become trivalent. For years, scientists assumed that all 

ht:xavalcnr chromium was converted to trivalent by the stomach's acidic environment} rendering it harmless. 

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 11 
144 

http://www ,ewg, 0 rg/ ch ro m i u m 6' in, tap 'w ate r 

It is now dear, however, that some of this toxic chemical can pass rhrough the sromach unchanged and 

penetrate tissues and organs throughout the body (Costa 1997), Studies in botb animals and people show 

tbat exposure to hexavalent chromium via drinking water leads to elevated chromium levels in tissues, particularly the gastrointestinal tract, blood, livct, kidneys and spleen, and in increased toxicity (Kerger 1996; 

rinky 1997; Anderson 2002; NTP 2008; EPA 2010a), 

deceit covered up cancer connection 

Research on the effects of chromium-6 in drinking water has focused on increased cancer risk. More 

than 20 years ago, researchers found an increased risk of stomach cancer and a "significant excess of overall 

cancer mortality" among villagers in Chinas Uaoning Province whose drinking water had been polluted by 

a chromium ore processing facility (Zhang 1987 ), 

'[his research should have triggered a Hurry of scientific and regulatory scrutiny, but the study was published in a Chinese-language medical journal, making it largely inaccessible to U,S, researchers and regula, 

tors, Ten years later, in April 1997, the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM) 

published a paper, purportedly by the same Chinese research team, that reversed the earlier condnsion, It 

said that the data from Liaoning Province "do not indicate an association of cancer mortality with exposure 

to [hexavalent chromiulnJ-contaminated groundvvater" (Zhang 1997), 

Investigations by EWe anJ the "Vall Srreet Journal (EWe; 20(5) revealed that ChemRisk, a cousulring 

firm hired by Pacific Gas & Electric Co, (PG&E) to fight the Erin Brockovich lawsuit over contamination 

in I Iinkley, Calif, had distorted dara from rhe Chinese srudy and placed the f:tlsified papet in a tespected 

scientific journal in order to reverse the original conclusion linking hexavalent chromium to sroll13ch cancer. 

outed consultant 

E\XIG's review of documents and depositions trom a Kettleman City, Calif, lawsuir against PG&E revealed that ChemRisk's employees - with the knowledge ofPG&E's artorneys - had conducted their 

own analysis of the original Chinese data in 1995,')7, deliberately excluding reports of cancer cases in the 

province that pointed to an association with hexavalent chromium, 'Ihey then wrote and submitted their 

paper t(lt publication without disclosing that they worked t{)[ ChcmRisk or that PG&E had paid lor the 

new "study." 

Kettleman City, like Hinkley, is home to a PG&E station that pumps natural gas from a Texas pipeline 

to California customers, Both facilities used hexavalent chromium to cool the natural gas and then dumped 

Chromium,6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 12 
145 

it into unlined ponds that allowed the contaminant to leach into groundwater. 

In the Brockovich lawsuit, residents of Hinkley sued PG&E for polluting their tap water with hexavalent 

chromium - the basis for the Julia Roberts film released in 2000. PG&E paid $333 million to settle the 

Hinkley case before the falsified paper was published, but scientists and regulators - including the EPAsubsequently cited the paper in research and safety assessments. In response to EWG's request for corrective 

action (EWG 2006), the journal retracted the paper in 2006, citing in particular the fact that "financial 

and intellectual input to the paper by outside parties was not disclosed" (Brandt-Rauf2006). Also in 2006, 

PG&E settled with the Kettleman City victims of chromium-6 contamination for $335 million. 

As part of its toxicological review, the California Environmental Protection Agency's (California EPA) 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), charged with setting a public health goal 

for the contaminant in tap water, conducted a rigorous re-analysis of the Chinese data. That work once 

again demonstrated a statistically significant increase in stomach cancer among the hexavalent chromiumexposed villagers compared to Liaoning Province's overall population (Beaumont 2008). 

Laboratory studies bolster cancer link 

Animal studies have provided additional evidence linking hexavalent chromium to cancer. A study by 

federal toxicologists on rats and mice revealed statistically significant, dose-related increases in tumors of the 

duodenum and small intestine in mice, and statistically significant increases in tumors of the oral cavity in 

rats (NTP 2008). Based on these data, the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors concluded that hexavalent chromium in drinking water shows clear evidence of carcinogenic activity 

(NTP 2007). 

These results agree with those of an earlier study that was marred by a number of limitations, including 

the outbreak of a viral infection in the mice under study (Borneff 1968). Nevertheless, a thorough statistical 

analysis of these data that accounted for the limitations still found a significant increase in stomach tumors 

(OEHHA 2009). 

The NTP findings led the US EPA to list hexavalent chromium as a priority for evaluation under its 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which last reviewed the health concerns associated with this 

contaminant in 1998. In September 2010, the agency released a draft toxicological review, concluding that 

chromium-6 in drinking water is "likely to be carcinogenic to humans" (EPA 201 Oa). Unfortunately, the 

EPA has also cited its ongoing investigation as a reason to delay adopting a more health-protective federal 

Chromium-Sis Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 13 
146 

http://www . ewg. 0 rgl ch ro m i u m 6 -in-tap -w ate r 

limit for chromium in tap water (EPA 2009). 

In contrast, California has moved ahead. California EPA scientists drew a clear conclusion: "The findings 

of available human, animal, genotoxic, and toxicokinetic studies all indicate that hexavalent chromium is 

a possible human carcinogen by the oral route" (OEHHA 2009). Dr. R. Gwiazda, a reviewer of the draft 

public health goal for chromium-6 in tap water, summed it up best: "Overall, the document convincingly 

demonstrates that indeed there is a relationship berween exposure ro [hexavalent chromium] via the oral 

route and the development of cancer in the gastrointestinal tract" (Gwiazda 2008). 

Some people are especially vulnerable 

Some individuals may be especially susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of chromium-6. Specifically, 

people with less acidic stomachs appear to have limited ability to convert hexavalent chromium to trivalent 

chromium, exposing them to higher levels of the toxic form and putting them at greater risk. 

A low-acid stomach can be caused by several widely used medications, such as antacids and proton pump 

inhibitors used to treat common disorders including gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease 

and chronic gastritis. Other conditions that can inhibit sromach acid production include pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases. People with pernicious anemia have also been found to 

absorb hexavalent chromium more readily (Donaldson 1966). 

Fetuses, infants and children also have higher sensitivity to carcinogenic chemicals. According to the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), children's developing organ systems are more vulnerable to damage from chemical exposures, and children are less able than adults to detoxifY and excrete chemicals (NAS 

1993). A recent evaluation by US EPA scientists in response to the agency's 2005 revised Cancer Guidelines 

noted that hexavalent chromium causes germ cell mutations and DNA deletions in developing embryos, 

indicating a need for age-dependent adjustment factors for risk assessments to account for the toxin's increased damage in developing bodies (McCarroll 2010). 

Chronic exposure to hexavalent chromium in tap water is likely to raise everyone's risk of cancer, but the 

young and the medically impaired may be especially vulnerable. These susceptible subpopulations deserve 

special protections. 

Chromium-Sis Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 14 
147 

Government failings 

EPA slow to set water limits for cl'iromium-6 

Despite growing recognition of hexavalent chromium's carcinogenic potential., including EPks draft 

designation of it as a likely human carcinogen, the agency has taken no action to limit levels of this toxic 

compound in drinking water. 1he agency has left in place an inadequate standard for total chromium. set 

nearly 20 years ago, that does not distinguish hetween toxic hexavalent and nutritionally essential trivalent 

chromium and cites "allergic dermatitis" as the only relevant health concern. 

'Ihe EPA has reviewed its standard fot total chromium twice since setting it in 1992. In 2003, the agency 

determined that even though new research on chromium-6 indicated cause fer concern, information gaps 

preveored establishment of a more protective standard (EPA 2003). Six years later, the EPA again delayed 

action on a stricter standard, this time because it had initiated an evaluadon ofhcxavalcnt dll"Omimll via its 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (EPA 2009). 'Ihe draft roxicological review released in September as part of this process identified exposure to hexavalent chromium in drinking water as likely to cause 

cancer to humans, and cited animal studies linking it to a variety of other health efFecls, including anemia 

and damage to the gastrointestinal tract, lymph nodes and liver (EPA 20 lOa). 

water standards are """,1:""'" out-of-date 

The EPA's inaction is but one example of the agency's lack of resolve in protecting Americans' tap water. 

The agency has not set a new, enforceable drinking water standard for any contaminant since 2001, even 

though ,he Safe Drinking Water Act requires the EPA to assess the need for standards fe)f at least five new 

chemicals every five yems. 1hree-fourths of the current standards, including tllt total chromium, were set in 

I ')91 and 1992 and have not been updated since. 

Since 1996, the EPA has reviewed data on toxicity and water poilution for 138 chemicals, but in every 

case it declined to set a safety standard, EWrG's analysis of its tap water quality datahasc showed that collectively these chemicals pollute drinking water used by more than III million Americans (EWe 2009). 

'Ihe framework under which the EPA sets drinking water standards is outdated. For example, the agency 

is not required to set maximum lcgallimits for contaminants; at levels that' protter the health of children or 

to consider the heightened vulnerability of rhe fetus and newborns (Donohue 2002). 

In addition, the EPA sets maximum legal limits for contaminants as if people are exposed to just one at a 

Chromium·6ls Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 15 
148 

http://www . ewg. 0 rgl ch ro m i u m 6- i n -tap -w ate r 

time. 111"t's not the reality ~ research shows that people carty hundreds of chemicals in their bodies at any 

given time. A growing number of studies also show that the risks add up when people arc exposed to multiple chemicals that can act in tandem to cause hatm ~ and that total risk can be greater than the sum of 

the parts (NRC 20(8). 

At of progress 

For the 114 contaminants that the EPA does regulate, EWG's drinking water quality analysis found that 

water suppliers achieved 92 percent compliance with mandatory health standards, demonstrating thar utilities can and do meet enforceable limits when they exist (EWe; 2(09). However, the EPA's f"ilure to develop 

meaningful standards for hexavalent chromium and scores of other contaminants leaves the public at risk. 

Recently the federal government has begun to fOCUS a critical eye on hexavalent chromium and other 

watet contaminants. \X1hen EPA Administratot Lisa Jackson took office, she announced that protecting 

America's drinking water would be one of seven agency priorities. In keeping with this goal, the EPA has 

announced plans to set <1 legal limit for perchlorate in rap water, which would make it the first new chemical to be regubred in drinking water in a decade. Meanwhile, the loxic Chemicals Safety Act (H.R. 5820), 

introduced in the House of Representatives this summer, specifically lists hexavalent chromium as a priority 

chemical tOr safety evaluation. 

EWe; recommends that the EPA set a legal limit for hexavalent chromium in drinking water as quickly 

as possible and require all water utilities to test for it. The EPA can speed the process by streamlining the 

IRIS assessment. We hope that Administrator Jackson's leadership on this critical issue will reduce cancer 

risk frl,. all Americans. 

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 16 
149 

Progress in California 

Califomia il'l the Face of Intl,,,,,,t.m Resistance 

State law required California ro adopt a drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium, the "Erin 

Brockovich chemical," hy Jan. 1, 2004. But with a legislature that regularly disregards its constitutional 

deadline fot adopting state budget, it is hardly surprising rhat state agencies now lag more than six years 

hehind in protecting residents from this cancer-causing contaminant. 

]n August 2009, the OHice ofE.wironmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), part ofCalifornia:s 

Environmental Protection Agency, completed the first step in the process, releasing a draft "public health 

goal" for chromimn-6 in tap water (OEHHA 2009). lhe agency proposed a goal of 0.06 parts pcr billion 

(ppb) to limit the increased lifetime cancer risk to one additional case of cancer for every million people 

chronically exposed at this level througb drinking water. 

lhe California EPA, however, did not take into account the special sensitivity of fetuses and infants, 

as recommended recently by federal EPA scientists (McCarroll 2010), or of people with common medical conditiolls that may increase uptake of hexavalent chromium. An exposure limit of 0.06 ppb may not 

adequately protect the health of many Californians. 

Industry, meanwhile, has pushed back. Honeywell International, Inc.. along with the Association of 

California Wlter Agencies, has filed requests for an additional external scientific peet review of the draft 

document. (In 200.), a federal judge in Newark, N.J. ordered Honeywell, a producer of aerospace systems, 

engineering services and consumer products, to carry Ollt an estimated $400 million cleanup of chromium 

waste along Jersey City's waterfront, citing "a substantial risk of imminent damage to public health and 

safety and imminent Jnd severe damage to the environmeI1t.") ']he American Chenlistry Council, an industry trade group, sought to rewrite the charge of the second peer review comnlittec and influence the composition of the group (ACC 2010), all in an eHon to weaken the proposed public health goal. 

Four of the five independent scientists taking part in this. additional, industry-instigateJ review process, 

now complete, expressed strong support for the proposed public health goal for hexavalent chromium (OEHHA2(10). 

water 

In California, the only state to require tap water tests for hexavalent chromium, current watet pollution 

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 17 
150 

http://www . ewg. 0 rgi c h rom i u m 6- i n -tap -wale r 

levels are a cause for concern. The chemical 'was detected in 2,208 our of more than 7,000 tap water systems 

analyzed as of2008 (CDPH 2009). 'Ihese tests could only detect hexavalent chromium down to 1 ppb, 

more than 16 times higher than the state's proposed public health goal. About 10 percent of the samples 

had levels of 5 ppb or higher. 

EWG's tap water quality database, including more recent test information, shows that 13.7 million Californians could be drinking water contaminated with at least 1 pph of hexavalent chromium (EWG 20(9). 

\Vith a more sensitive test, hexavalent chrOIuium \-vould be detected in far more water systems. 

Currently, California's tap water standard f(lt total chromium is 50 ppb, half the federal standard. Both 

the federal and state standards combine hexavalent chromium and the essential nutrient trivalent chromium, and are more than 800 and l,600 times higher, respectively, rhan the proposed California public health 

goal for chromium-6, 'The fKt that these tegulations lump a cancer-causing contaminant with an essential 

nutrient underscores the need for reform of water standards. 

towards a water standard 

'Ille California Safe Drinking \1Vater Act of 1996 requires the California EPA to perform risk assessments 

and adopt goals for contaminants in drinking water based on public health considerations alone, These 

goals do not have the force of regulation and represent only the first step in creating a mandatory standard. 

Once the California EPA has finalized its public health goal tor hexavalent chromium, the California 

Department of Public Health (CD PH) must establish a state drinking water standard known as a Maxinlum Contaminant Level. lbesc standards take economic factors and technical challenges into account and 

should be as dose as feasible to the corresponding public health goaL 

EWG urges the California EPA to promptly finalize its public health goal fot hexavalent chromium and 

calls on the CDPH to take immediate action to establish a sound regulatory srandard, Regulation of this 

extremely common contaminant is already six years overdue. 

Chromium,6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 18 
151 

Study Methodology 

Seiel:tillrl: E\1(!C targeted 35 cities in 23 states and the District of Columbia for tap water testing. 

We chose large cities as well as cities whose water utilities reported frequent detections of total chromium. 

based on our review of state records compiled in EWG's national tap water darabase (EWG 20(9) and on 

annual water quality reports published by water suppliers. 

!;n,llp,t:lil<nt· E\1(!G recruited water collecrors via its staff and their contacts. Tap water samples 

were collected from unfiltered taps in homes or in public buildings such as hospitals, libraries and malls. 

Urility bills were typically reviewed to verifY the water source of each sample. 

All volunteers used a standardized sample collection protocol. Samplers ran the cold-water tap for two 

minutes to clear pipes of standing water and then collected approximately 100 mL of tap water in a 125 

mL HDpE container. Samples wtre packed in coolers with chilled freezer packs and immediately shipped 

to the laboratory for analysis. With lew exceptions, samples arrived within 24 hours of coHection. 

Hexavalent chromium levels in tap water samples were measured 

by Exova (Sama Fe Springs, Calif; www.cxova.com).aniSO/IEe 17025-accredited analytical laboratory, 

using EPA method 218.6. Samples were prepared through adjustment to pH 9.0-9.5 and filtration. 'l1,en a 

1,200 microliter portion of the sample was introduced into an ion chromatogtaph. A guard column removed organics from the sample hefore hexavalent chromium as Ct042- was separated on an anion exchange separator column. Post-column dcriVJtiz:ltion of rhe hexavalent chrornium with diphenylcarbazide 

was followed by detection of the colored complex at 540 nm. 'l1,is method has a detection limit of 0.02 

parts per billion. 

Exova's procedures for quality assurance and quality control include use of duplicate and matrix spike 

analyses (or matrix spike & matrix spike duplicate analyses) for 5 percent of each hatch of samples. 'The 

Relative Percent Diffetence (RpD) between duplicates should t;,1l within the contTollimit of B maximum. 

Spike recovery can range from 7 4-to-117 percent. 

Exova abo measured total chromium levels in tap water samples using EPA method 200.8; these results 

arc not reported here because tht: Jetection limit \.-vas five times higher than that for the hexavalent chromitml measurements. As a result, for 11 of 3') samples no total chromium could be derected using this method. Hexavalent chromium was the dominant form of chromium present in 21 of24 samples (88 percent) 

fi), which !Otal chromium could be quantified. 

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 19 
152 

http://www ,ewg, a rg/ch rom iu m6- in-tap-water 

1"""",,,,,,,,,, !VI,jPI~I!I!-F 1he maps of popuiation<ldjusted average total and hexavalent chromium by 

county were constructed using the E\'(7G tap water database (EWe 2009), Averages were computed by 

summing the population served times the average chronliUln level for each "vater supplier serving the 

county, then dividing by the total population served by the county's water suppliers. Avetage levels account 

for variations in testing frequency. 

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 20 
153 

References 

ACC (American Chemistry Council). 2010. Letter to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. June 17, 2010. 

AWWARF (American Water Works Association Research Foundation, now the Water Research Foundation). 2004. Occurrence Survey 

of Boron and Hexavalent Chromium. 

Anderson SA, Valentine JL, Fernando R, Sparacino CM, Collins B. 2002. Chrornium accumulation in the tissues of rats, mice and 

guinea pigs exposed to sodium dichromate dihydrate in drinking water for twenty-one days. Toxicol Sci 66(SuppI1): 138. 

Beaumont JJ, Sedman RM, Reynolds SO, Sherman CD, Li LH, Howd RA, et al. 2008. Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to hexavalent chromium in drinking water. Epidemiology 19(1): 12-23. 

Borneff J, Engelhardt K, Griem W, Kunte H. Reichert J. 1968. [Carcinogens in water and soil. XXII. Mouse drinking water experiments 

with 3,4-benzopyrene and potassium chromate]. Arch Hyg BakterioI152(1): 45-53. 

Brandt-Rauf P. 2006. Editorial retraction. Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to hexavalent chromium in water. Journal 

of Occupational and Environmental Medicine i American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 48(7): 749. 

CDPH (California Department of Public Health). 2009. Chromium-6 in Drinking Water Sources: Sampling Results. California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA. February 17, 2009. Available at: www.cdph.ca.govicertlicidrinkingwaterIPagesIChromium6sampling.aspx. 

Costa M. 1997. Toxicity and carcinogenicity of Cr(VI) in animal models and humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 27(5): 431-442. 

Donaldson RM, Jr., Barreras RF. 1966. Intestinal absorption of trace quantities of chromium. The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical 

Medicine 68(3): 484-493. 

Donohue JM, Lipscomb JC. 2002. Health advisory values for drinking water contaminants and the methodology for determining acute 

exposure values. Sci Total Environ 288(1-2): 43-9. 

EPA (Environrnental Protection Agency)_ 2000. Hazard summary for chromium compounds. Available at: www.epa.goviltn!atwlhlthefi 

chromium.html. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Six-Year Review 1 of Drinking Water Standards. EPA 815-F-03-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. July 2003. Available at: www.epa.govisafewaterireviewffirsUeview.html. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Six-Year Review 2 Health Effects Assessment: Summary Report. EPA 822-R-09-006. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. October 2009. Available at: www.epa.govfsafewater/reviewfsecond_review. 

htm! 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (CAS No. 18540-29-9) (External Review Draft). EPN635iR-10i004A. September 2010. Available at: oaspub.epa.govleims/eimscomm.getfile?p_downioad id"498712. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. Drinking Water Contaminants. Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater'contaminants! 

index.html. 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2005. Chrome-Plated Fraud: How PG&E's scientists-for-hire reversed findings of cancer study. 

Available at: www.ewg.orgferinbrockovichchromium6IawsuiV. 

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 21 
154 

http://www . ewg .org/ch romi u m6- i n -tap-wate r 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2006, Letter to JOEM. Available at: www.ewg.org/node/21952. 

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2009. EWG's Drinking Water Quality Analysis and Tap Water Database. Available at: http:// 

www.ewg,org!tap-water/home. 

Finley BL. Kerger BD, Katona MW, Gargas ML. Corbett GC. Paustenbach DJ. 1997, Human ingestion of chromium (VI) in drinking 

water: pharmacokinetics lollowing repeated exposure. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 142(1): 151-159. 

Gwiazda R. 2008, Review 01 the document "Public Health Goal lor hexavalent chromium in drinking water" Prepared by the Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency in January 2008: Pesticide and 

Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. 

Available at: www,oehha,org/water/phglpdf/Cr_Gwiazda090909.pdf. 

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1990, Chromium and chromium compounds, International Agency for Research 

on Cancer. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 49:49·214, 

Kerger BD. Paustenbach DJ, Corbett GE, Finley BL. 1996, Absorption and elimination of trivalent and hexavalent chromium in humans 

lollowing ingestion 01 a bolus dose in drinking water. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 141 (1): 145-158, 

Lai H, McNeill LS, 2006, Chromium redox chemistry in drinking water systems, J Environ Eng 132(8): 842-851, 

McCarroll N, Keshava N. Chen J. Akerman G, Kligerman A, Rinde E. 2010. An evaluation 01 the mode of action framework lor mutagenic carcinogens case study II: chromium (VI). Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 51(2): 89-111, 

NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 1993. Peslicides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington DC: National Academy Press. 

NRC (National Research CounCil), 2008. Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Task Ahead. Available at: www.nap.edu! 

catalog!12528,html 

NTP (National Toxicology Program), 2007, Actions on Draft NTP Technical Reports Reviewed by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Technical Reports Review Subcommittee, May 16-17. 2007, Minutes available at: ntp.niehs.nih.gov/filesfTRRS_Mlns_MaL2007_ 

bs8rgMWI111,pdf. 

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2008, NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Dichromate Dihydrate (CAS No, 7789-12-0) in F344!N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies), NTP TR 546, NIH Publication No. 

07-5887: National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: 

http://ntp,niehs.nih.gov/lilesI546.web_FINAL.pdf< 

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), 2009< Draft Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking 

Water: Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental 

Protection Agency, Available at: www.oehha.ca.gov1water/phg/pdf/Cr6PHGdraft082009.pdf. 

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), 2010, Peer Review Comments regarding 2001 Draft Public Health Goal 

for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water. Available at: www.oehha.ca.goviwateriphgichrom09201O.html. 

USGS (United States Geological Survey), Mineral Commodity Summaries: Chromium, January 2010. 

Chromium-6ls Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 22 
155 

Zhang JD, li S. 1997. Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to hexavalent chromium in water. Journal of Occupational and 

Environmental Medicine I American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 39(4): 315-319. 

Zhang JD, Li XL. 1987. [Chromium pollution of soil and water in JinzhouJ. Zhonghua yu fang yi xue za zhi [Chinese Journal of Preventive MedicineJ21 (5): 262-264. 

Chromium-6ls Widespread in US Tap Water: Environmental Working Group 23 
156 

RESPONSES BY KENNETH COOK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. The Environmental Working Group’s recent investigation found chromium-6 in the tap water of 31 cities across the Nation. Describe what the main message is from your report and the steps that you believe EPA should take to address 

the potential public health threats from chromium-6 in tap water? 

Response. The main message from our ‘‘Chromium-6 in U.S. Tap Water’’ study is 

that the pollution from chromium-6 in U.S. drinking water is more widespread than 

was previously acknowledged or known by water utilities and EPA. Americans have 

a right to know what contaminants are in their tap water. Another message is that 

more testing is needed on the prevalence of chromium-6 in drinking water and that 

the EPA must set a safety standard as soon as possible. For those reasons EWG 

fully supports EPA’s Guidance for Enhanced Monitoring of Hexavalent Chromium 

in Drinking Water, which was released on January 11, 2011. We are pleased to see 

that our study and EPA’s guidance has motivated cities and utilities to test their 

water. In most cases the cities found similar or even higher levels of chromium-6 

than our results: 

• Honolulu, HI 

• EWG Study—2.00 parts per billion (ppb) 

• Honolulu Board of Water Supply—0.32 ppb to 4.00 ppb from 11 samples 

• Madison, WI 

• EWG Study—1.58 ppb 

• Madison—0.40 ppb to 1.79 ppb from four wells 

• Milwaukee, WI 

• EWG Study—0.18 ppb 

• Milwaukee—0.19 ppb to 0.22 ppb from 18 samples 

• Bend, OR 

• EWG Study—0.78 ppb 

• Avion Water (private water supplier)—0.25 ppb to 0.65 ppb from four samples 

We also fully support your legislation, S. 79, the Protecting Pregnant Women and 

Children From Hexavalent Chromium Act of 2011, to ensure that EPA does set a 

drinking water standard for this dangerous chemical. 

Question 2. Describe what your organization found regarding industry’s influence 

on the science concerning the potential health effects from drinking chromium-6. 

Response. In 2005 investigations by Environmental Working Group and The Wall 

Street Journal revealed that ChemRisk, a consulting firm hired by Pacific Gas & 

Electric Co. (PG&E) to fight the Hinkley, California lawsuit had placed a falsified 

article in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM). 

In the 1980’s researchers in China’s Liaoning Province found an increased risk 

of stomach cancer and a ‘‘significant excess of overall cancer mortality’’ among villagers who had drinking water polluted by a chromium ore processing facility. These 

findings did not receive much attention because they were published in a Chineselanguage medical journal. 

In 1997, however, the JOEM published a paper, purportedly by the same Chinese 

research team, which reversed the previous conclusion and said the data actually 

‘‘do not indicate an association of cancer mortality with exposure to [hexavalentchromium]-contaminated groundwater.’’ EWG and The Wall Street Journal investigated the article only to discover that the report was fabricated. The journal retracted the fraudulent paper in 2006. Subsequently, California officials conducted a 

re-assessment of the study data and found a statistically significant increase in 

stomach cancer among people exposed to chromium-6. 

This industry deception alarms us especially given the extent of chromium-6 contamination nationwide. 

Question 3. Describe the Environmental Working Group’s views on the need to address perchlorate contamination in drinking water. 

Response. We’ve believed that EPA must set a safe drinking water standard on 

perchlorate for many years. We thank you for your leadership in pushing the agency 

for more than a decade. We also applaud Administrator Jackson’s announcement at 

the February 2, 2011 hearing that EPA is moving forward with development of a 

first-ever national drinking water standard for perchlorate. We look forward to seeing the agency’s proposed rule establishing this standard. 

Scientific research has established that perchlorate in significant amounts disrupts production of thyroid hormones, and adequate thyroid hormones are crucial 

to normal brain development and growth in the fetus, infants and young children. 

EWG has documented the significant concerns and presence of perchlorate including in our ‘‘Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water’’ report, released in 2003, which determined that it had been found in drinking water, groundwater or soil in at least 43 
157 

states. Our 2008 analysis of FDA data, ‘‘FDA Food Testing Shows Widespread Rocket Fuel Contamination of Commonly Consumed Foods and Beverages,’’ found that 

75 percent of nearly 300 commonly consumed foods and beverages—dairy, vegetables and fruit—were contaminated with perchlorate. 

The time for regulation of perchlorate is now. The science is well established and 

we encourage EPA to move swiftly in finalizing perchlorate regulations. 

RESPONSE BY KENNETH COOK TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR CARPER

Question. How can the Federal Government focus its efforts to improve drinking 

water quality on pollution prevention? What kinds of tools and programs exist to 

prevent the pollution of drinking water and what new ones are needed? 

Response. The most cost effective and best way to prevent chromium-6 pollution 

of the nation’s drinking water is to keep it from getting in there in the first place. 

Environmental Working Group fully supports increased investment in source water 

protection, including aquatic buffers and erosion and sediment control, and urges 

cities to follow EPA’s Guidance for Enhanced Monitoring of Hexavalent Chromium 

in Drinking Water so that we can get a fuller perspective of the prevalence of chromium-6 pollution. A more complete picture will allow the Federal Government to 

better target financial resources for source water protection. 

We also urge congressional efforts to restore President Obama’s proposed fiscal 

year budget cuts to the drinking water and clean water State revolving funds. We 

need to make a full investment in our water infrastructure. The price of doing so 

will not go down, it will just continue to increase. With investment delays, more 

Americans will be exposed to dangerous chemicals in their drinking water. 

RESPONSES BY KENNETH COOK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. The Safe Drinking Water Act currently allows EPA to require only 

temporary monitoring for no more than thirty of the hundreds of unregulated contaminants in our drinking water. This leaves additional testing to groups like EWG. 

Do you think the Safe Drinking Water Act should be amended to allow EPA to increase monitoring for unregulated contaminants? 

Response. In December 2009, Environmental Working Group released our ‘‘National Drinking Water Data base.’’ (available at: http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/ 

home) This study assembled an unprecedented 20 million drinking water quality 

tests performed by water utilities between 2004–2009. It showed 316 contaminants 

in water supplied to 256 million Americans in 48,000 communities in 45 states. 

Nearly 64 percent—202—of the 316 contaminants in drinking water remain unregulated by the EPA. It is clear that Administrator Jackson has taken a strong first 

step through the agency’s drinking water strategy. EPA needs to rid our drinking 

water of these so-called ‘‘unregulated contaminants.’’ 

In 2010, EPA Administrator Jackson announced the agency’s new drinking water 

strategy with the goal of more quickly and effectively reviewing and addressing the 

health risks posed by drinking water contaminants. This new strategy includes 

goals to address contaminants as groups, foster development of new drinking water 

technologies, use of multiple authorities like TSCA, and partner with states to develop shared access to monitoring data. These are all steps in right direction. 

On March 4, 2011 EPA released the proposed contaminants for the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) including perfluorinated compounds. 

Unfortunately, EPA has not set a new drinking water standard under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act since 2001. It is important that EPA not be limited in the 

amount of chemicals they are allowed to include in the UCMR. Instead, Congress 

should require that EPA monitor a set minimum number of unregulated contaminants. Congress should also continue its robust oversight of EPA’s efforts—or lack 

thereof—in setting safe drinking water standards. 

Question 2. As you know, I have introduced legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act to require companies to prove that chemicals are safe for their 

intended use. How would reforming TSCA help improve drinking water quality? 

Response. The Safe Chemicals Act would help improve drinking water quality because the safety standard in the legislation requires that EPA consider aggregate 

or cumulative exposures to a chemical for vulnerable populations. The exposure 

must present a negligible risk of an adverse effect. This safety standard means that 

upon enactment of the Safe Chemicals Act, EPA will be tasked with looking at all 

routes of exposure for chemicals including through drinking water, consumer prod-
158 

ucts and personal care products. EPA is already operating under its new drinking 

water strategy, one tenant of which is to utilize multiple authorities. Unfortunately 

the safety standard under TSCA is so weak that only five chemicals have been regulated in 35 years. Under the Safe Chemicals Act, EPA will be able to improve water 

quality by regulating chemicals that pose a risk to human health through all routes 

of exposure including drinking water. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. That is very helpful. 

We will now hear from Ms. Diane VanDe Hei. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE VANDE HEI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES 

Ms. VANDE HEI. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking 

Member Inhofe and the rest of the Committee. 

My name is Diane VanDe Hei. I am Executive Director of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. It is an organization of 

the Nation’s largest drinking water systems, serving over 130 million people with safe drinking water. 

Carrie Lewis, Superintendent of Water for the city of Milwaukee, 

was invited to testify today, but due to weather conditions in the 

Midwest, was unable to make it. I know she would like to be here. 

This morning, I would like to talk to you about the drinking 

water regulatory process from the point of view of the drinking 

water utility community and about the recent report from the EWG 

group that detected traces of chromium VI in the drinking water 

of 31 communities. 

Like the members of the Committee, AMWA’s members are committed to ensuring the provision of safe, healthy drinking water to 

the public. As you can see from Carrie’s written testimony, Milwaukee Water Works is a leader in testing its water for unregulated contaminants, and frequently interacts with both EPA and 

the customers regarding water quality. In fact, Milwaukee tests for 

over 500 contaminants, and that information is put on their public 

website, when they are only required to monitor for 90. So they go 

above and beyond what is required by Federal law and State law 

in terms of monitoring. They are very open to the public in terms 

of what they find. You will find with the rest of this testimony, the 

question is, what do you tell them about what you found. 

But even with the collaboration, the chromium VI issue has been 

particularly difficult for Milwaukee, and many other drinking 

water systems cited in the report. First, it was a big surprise to 

many utilities to find out about the EWG report through newspaper headlines. Most of them would have liked to have had a 

phone call saying, here is a heads-up, this is what we found, this 

is what is coming out. Furthermore, the report’s methodology of 

collecting a single sample from the distribution system with no 

sense of where or when the sample was taken, should not be used 

to draw broad inferences about a water utility’s quality. 

While utilities want their customers to know what is in their 

water, we must also understand what reported levels of contaminants, often in the parts per billion or parts per trillion level, mean 

for the public. This is where EPA comes in. Utilities count on the 

agency to conduct solid peer-reviewed research to inform us about 

which contaminants at what levels we should focus on to protect 

public health and meet water quality standards. The regulatory 

process put in place by the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments 
159 

of 1996 was designed to do this. We believe the process as designed 

works well. 

This is why AMWA has some concerns about the guidance EPA 

released last month, to have water systems voluntarily sample 

their water supplies for chromium VI. While we agree that the 

public must be made aware of harmful contaminants in their 

drinking water, before encouraging utility testing, the screening 

methodology should be approved by EPA and the public health impacts of the contaminants should be established. 

Additionally, the January 11th guidance recommends using California’s certified laboratories to analyze water samples for chromium VI at a reporting level of .06 parts per billion and a 5-day 

holding time. Although California’s method is only approved for a 

reporting level of 1 part per billion and a 24-hour holding time. So 

there is a problem. If you are sending utilities to California laboratories to have their samples tested, and the guidance is saying 

there is a 5-day holding time and the method is only approved for 

24 hours, the quality control and what is the use of that data 

comes into question. So that needs to be sorted out between EPA, 

its guidance and the States and the utilities, what is the method 

they should be using. 

Morever, once water systems test for chromium VI, it is unclear 

how to communicate the results to the public. We have covered 

that. 

Therefore, AMWA would urge EPA to continue moving forward 

with its research into chromium VI, which will result in additional 

data that can inform any appropriate regulation through the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. AMWA believes that the best public health 

protection will result if EPA follows the existing regulatory framework that was designed by Congress to the 1996 amendments. The 

drinking water community will support and comply with the standards that are the product of this established process, as we always 

have. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lewis follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CARRIE LEWIS, SUPERINTENDENT, MILWAUKEE WATER WORKS ON

BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES

Good morning Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the 

Committee. My name is Carrie Lewis and I am the Superintendent of Milwaukee 

Water Works in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Water Works provides high-quality 

drinking water to more than 860,000 people in Milwaukee and 15 surrounding communities. 

I also serve on the board of directors of the Association of Metropolitan Water 

Agencies (AMWA), which is an organization representing the largest publicly owned 

drinking water utilities in the United States. AMWA’s members provide clean and 

safe drinking water to more than 130 million Americans from Alaska to Puerto Rico. 

Today I am here to discuss AMWA’s view of EPA’s drinking water regulatory 

process, as well as the approach Milwaukee Water Works takes to removing contaminants from our drinking water supplies and the testing we conduct to ensure 

that our water remains in compliance with all State and Federal regulations. This 

issue has gained increased attention due to a report released by the Environmental 

Working Group (EWG) in December alleging that the drinking water of thirty-one 

cities across the United States—including Milwaukee—contains detectable levels of 

chromium-6. Chromium-6 is, according to EPA’s draft Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) toxicological assessment, a suspected carcinogen if ingested by humans over a lifetime. Chromium-6 is a component of total chromium, which is regulated by EPA with a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 100 parts per billion 
160 

(ppb). At this time, there is not a separate Federal drinking water regulation for 

chromium-6, nor does EPA require drinking water systems to test their water supplies for the chemical. 

Additionally, because Chairwoman Boxer has introduced S. 78 and S. 79, bills 

that would set timelines within which EPA would have to set enforceable drinking 

water standards for perchlorate and chromium-6, respectively, I will share some 

thoughts as to how the water utility community believes we can work with the government to best protect public health while adhering to the regulatory process established through the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and also reasonably allocating the resources currently available to local communities. 

DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS PRIORITIZE PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION

Like all drinking water systems, Milwaukee Water Works is committed to protecting public health. The utility meets all State and Federal requirements for safe 

and healthful drinking water by subjecting its Lake Michigan sourcewater to a multiple-step process to remove illness-causing microorganisms and contaminants. The 

water is disinfected with ozone, a highly reactive gas that destroys microorganisms, 

removes taste and odor, and reduces byproducts from chlorine disinfection. Coagulation, settling, and biologically active filtration remove additional particles. Fluoride 

is added for dental health consistent with CDC recommendations, and a phosphorous compound is added to help control corrosion of lead and copper pipes. Finally, chloramine disinfection ensures safe drinking water throughout the distribution system and at consumer faucets. 

In addition to this robust treatment regime, Milwaukee complies with EPA regulations that require drinking water systems to test their water supplies for more 

than ninety different regulated and unregulated contaminants that are, based on 

the best available science, thought to pose the greatest risks to human health. But 

Milwaukee Water Works actually goes above and beyond this requirement, testing 

its source and treated drinking water for over five hundred contaminants—more 

than five times the number required by EPA. We voluntarily conduct this monitoring as a precaution to ensure safe water, to collect baseline data for study, to understand how contaminants may affect public health, and to prepare for future regulations. 

In 2004 Milwaukee became one of the first utilities in the United States to test 

its source and drinking water for endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs). In 2005, 

it was one of the first to test for pharmaceuticals and personal care products 

(PPCPs). To date, none of these substances have been found in Milwaukee’s drinking water. In 2008, the Associated Press cited Milwaukee as one of only twentyeight major utilities in the U.S. to test source and treated water for emerging contaminants such as EDCs and PPCPs, and Milwaukee was the first U.S. utility to 

post its test results on the Internet. As you can see, Milwaukee Water Works takes 

great pride in ensuring the safety and quality of the drinking water that is distributed to our customers. 

In response to concerns about chromium-6 raised by the EWG report, in January 

the utility conducted independent tests for the chemical. Three rounds of samples 

were collected from six separate locations: untreated Lake Michigan water entering 

Milwaukee’s two water treatment plants; fully treated water as it leaves each treatment plant; and two locations in the distribution system. Samples analyzed using 

EPA method 218.6 identified the presence of chromium-6 at 0.22 ppb in untreated 

source water, at 0.20 ppb in treated water leaving each treatment plant, and at 0.19 

ppb at two points in the distribution system. We immediately communicated this 

information to our customers, and also confirmed to them that there is no health 

evidence or indication that Milwaukee’s drinking water is unsafe for human consumption or use. Furthermore, there is no need for customers to purchase or install 

special filtration devices at faucets, water fountains, or at any other point-of-use location at homes and businesses. 

While Milwaukee acted quickly following the release of EWG’s report, we would 

have begun our own monitoring for chromium-6 sooner if EWG had shared their 

findings with us immediately after they tested Milwaukee’s water, rather than waiting several months to release their data from across the country to the media en 

masse. Moreover, in the absence of additional utility testing we were concerned that 

public confidence in our drinking water supply would be undermined by the widely 

reported results of a single water sample from a single faucet, which according to 

EWG was collected from somewhere within our service area sometime during the 

past several months. This uncertainty was unacceptable to us, so we decided to 

move forward with our own testing. 
161 

Along these same lines, on January 11 EPA released a guidance to help water 

systems voluntarily sample source water, plant treated water, and water in the distribution system for chromium-6 on a quarterly basis. But while AMWA appreciates 

the goal of properly informing the public about the quality of drinking water using 

standardized scientific methods, the association has several reservations about the 

guidance. For example, the guidance refers to using California’s certified laboratories to conduct chromium-6 analysis at a reporting level of 0.06 ppb and a holding 

time of up to 5 days. However, California currently approves this method only for 

a reporting level of 1.0 ppb and a 24-hour holding time. In addition, questions about 

proper sampling technique and sample preservation are not addressed in the guidance, which leads to uncertainty as to whether the resulting data will be valid since 

EPA does not officially approve the method described in the guidance. 

Some of these questions have prompted some drinking water utilities to choose 

to not test for chromium-6 until EPA has completed its risk assessment for the contaminant, which is expected later this year. This decision reflects the fact that, in 

the absence of solid human health data from EPA, it is impossible to tell the public 

with any certainty what exactly the results of these tests may mean. As a result, 

some utilities will choose to expend their limited resources focusing on testing and 

treating for other chemicals—those for which EPA has already established a clear 

human health link. Each of these approaches is valid, and they demonstrate the 

hazards of stirring concerns about a particular contaminant before all of the necessary research is complete. 

SENSIBLE REGULATION THROUGH THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

As we’ve heard today, reports in the news media about unregulated drinking 

water contaminants such as chromium-6, perchlorate, and pharmaceutical and personal care products often lead to calls that EPA should ‘‘move expeditiously’’ to set 

legal drinking water limits for emerging contaminants. To that end, the bills introduced by Chairwoman Boxer last week would require EPA to set enforceable drinking water standards for perchlorate and chromium-6 no later than 1 year after the 

enactment of each measure. But AMWA would caution against undermining the 

SDWA process and forcing EPA to regulate certain contaminants simply because 

they have been highlighted by an outside group or featured in the news media. Instead, EPA must maintain the latitude to conduct and complete sound, transparent 

research that determines whether, and at what level, chromium-6 and other contaminants may pose threats to human health. 

This current system, put in place by the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments 

of 1996, is a reasonable and effective way to establish drinking water standards. Before making a determination to regulate a drinking water contaminant, EPA must 

consider the potential adverse effects of the contaminant on human health, the frequency and level of the contaminant’s occurrence in public drinking water systems, 

and whether regulation will present a meaningful opportunity to reduce public 

health risks. These requirements set a high bar for the Agency, but they ensure that 

the regulations are well vetted and that dollars subsequently spent by utilities to 

detect and remove these contaminants are put to good use. 

SDWA requires EPA to consider regulating new contaminants on an ongoing 

basis, as new scientific data becomes available. Every 5 years, EPA must publish 

a Contaminant Candidate List of unregulated drinking water contaminants for 

which additional research will be prioritized. EPA must make a decision on whether 

to regulate at least five of these contaminants every 5 years, ensuring that the 

Agency has a frequent opportunity to examine the best available science for the 

most researched unregulated contaminants. 

Every 6 years, EPA must review all currently regulated contaminants and make 

a decision on whether there are any National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

for which current health effects assessments, changes in technology, or other factors 

provide a health or technical basis to support a regulatory revision that will maintain or strengthen public health protection. For the last Six-Year Review, published 

in 2010, EPA stated that it was awaiting the final risk assessment for chromium6 before making a decision about revising the total chromium regulation. The IRIS 

assessment for chromium-6 was released for peer review on September 30, 2010. 

Finally, SDWA requires EPA to maintain an Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program to collect data on unregulated contaminants that are suspected to 

be present in drinking water supplies, and gives the EPA administrator the power 

to promulgate a drinking water regulation on an expedited basis for a contaminant 

found to be an urgent threat to public health following consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, and the 

National Institutes of Health. Clearly, EPA has at its disposal the regulatory tools 
162 

1 ‘‘OEHAA Releases Revised Draft Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium,’’ December 

31, 2010. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/Chrom6press123110.pdf. 2 ‘‘Senator Boxer Delivers Remarks on Protecting Our Landmark Environmental Laws and 

Creating Jobs,’’ January 6, 2011. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority. 

PressReleases&ContentRecordlid=5cc0f6df-802a-23ad-4d13-bc6e386b53fe. 3 ‘‘Testimony of Peter S. Silva, Assistant Administrator for Water, and Cynthia J. Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate,’’ December 

necessary to make informed and scientifically sound decisions about drinking water 

regulations. 

Perhaps just as importantly, SDWA recognizes that there are occasions when it 

will be technologically impossible or infeasible for a drinking water utility to remove 

a contaminant to the point where it poses absolutely zero risk of a public health 

impact. Therefore, when regulating a contaminant EPA publishes both a non-enforceable ‘‘maximum contaminant level goal’’ (MCLG) which represents the level at 

which there is no known risk to human health, and an enforceable MCL, a binding 

limit set as close to the MCLG as is feasible after considering the best available 

treatment technology and cost factors. To be clear, as California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment explained in a December 31, 2010 press statement, a drinking water contaminant goal ‘‘is not meant to be the maximum ‘safe’ 

level’’ of a given chemical in drinking water. Instead, ‘‘it represents a stringent 

health-protective goal’’ that is used ‘‘to develop and enforceable regulatory standard.’’1

Consequently, EWG’s report should not be read to suggest that the drinking water 

of Milwaukee or any other community poses a threat to the public because its chromium-6 level meets or exceeds California’s proposed public health goal for the contaminant. To the contrary, the city of Milwaukee Department of Public Health has 

determined that there is no evidence of an imminent public health risk or threat 

of acute illness due to low levels of chromium-6 in the city’s water supply. For these 

reasons, AMWA believes Congress should not force EPA to prematurely terminate 

its study of chromium-6 or any other emerging contaminant. 

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

As the committee performs important oversight of EPA’s drinking water program, 

AMWA’s message is quite simple: public health protection is paramount, and we 

fully support SDWA’s defined process for identifying, regulating and revising drinking water contaminants. But Congress should not overreact to any outside organization’s unscientific report on drinking water quality by passing legislation such as S. 

78 or S. 79 and requiring EPA to regulate certain contaminants within an arbitrary 

period of time. If Congress were to require municipal water systems to increase 

their testing or alter their treatment of water supplies in response to each and every 

report published by an activist group, it would introduce into the process a political 

component that the SDWA statute was designed to exclude. Allowing Congress, not 

EPA, to decide when certain emerging contaminants must be regulated would irrevocably weaken the Safe Drinking Water Act, undermine public confidence in the 

water supply, and add significant costs to local communities—all while delivering 

questionable public health benefits. 

Instead, AMWA believes that the best public health protections will result if Congress, as Chairwoman Boxer argued in January, respects EPA’s authority to craft 

drinking water regulations and set environmental standards ‘‘in a measured, moderate, responsible way,’’ and does ‘‘not interfere with the ability of the EPA and the 

states to act in accordance with the law to respond to what the scientists are telling 

us.’’ 2 If, pursuant to the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA research determines that the presence of a certain level of chromium-6 in drinking 

water presents a human health risk, then the Agency should establish an enforceable standard that can reasonably and feasibly be met by the nation’s drinking 

water systems. The drinking water community will support and comply with standards that are the product of this established process, as we always have. 

There are effective steps that AMWA urges Congress to take to ensure that utilities have the resources available to keep clean and safe drinking water flowing to 

all of their customers. For example, AMWA supports reauthorization of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), a Federal program that offers loans to 

help water systems comply with Federal drinking water standards. While the program largely aims to help small community water systems comply with SDWA 

standards (especially considering that EPA has reported that ninety-six percent of 

all health-based SDWA violations occur at utilities serving fewer than 10,000 people 3), it could be strengthened by making more funds available for projects at very 
163 

8, 2009. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore—id=b773e8ed 

097b8a-4d87-9835a-cf0f644ff6ef. 4 ‘‘EPA’s 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment Fact Sheet,’’ February 2009. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/dwns/upload/2009—03—26— 

needs survey—2007—fs—needssurvey—2007.pdf. 

large water systems that serve nearly half of America’s population. Metropolitan 

utilities that serve more than 100,000 people represent thirty-five percent of the 

drinking water infrastructure need identified in EPA’s 2007 Drinking Water Needs 

Survey, but through 2009 had received only twenty-three percent of DWSRF funds 

distributed since the program’s inception. In addition to strengthening the DWSRF, 

Congress should consider new and innovative programs to help water utilities cope 

with rising infrastructure costs, such as a water infrastructure bank or a similar 

program that focuses on urban water infrastructure and public health. 

Similarly, Congress should reject calls to reduce funding for the DWSRF as a 

means to cut Federal spending. While we can all agree that the Federal budget deficit needs to be addressed, the fact remains that the nation’s drinking water systems 

will need to spend nearly $335 billion over the next 20 years just to maintain current levels of service.4 These costs are not optional, and cannot be ignored without 

putting public health at risk. A strong DWSRF program is essential to preserve a 

safe and secure water supply. 

Finally, AMWA supported passage of last year’s ‘‘Reduction of Lead in Drinking 

Water Act,’’ which was sponsored by Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member 

Inhofe and updated SDWA’s statutory definition of ‘‘lead-free’’ as it applies to new 

pipes and plumbing fixtures that carry drinking water. Improving technology made 

a lower lead standard attainable, and the legislation won bipartisan support because it will implement the new standard in such a way that will not saddle communities with prohibitive costs. It is through such collaborative, achievable measures that Congress can best protect public health and the quality of the drinking 

water supply. Technical questions about whether and at what level to regulate 

emerging contaminants in the drinking water supply, on the other hand, should continue to be considered at EPA through the transparent process outlined by Congress 

in the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing today. I look 

forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

RESPONSE BY CARRIE LEWIS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question. Describe the importance that utilities place on ensuring that they provide safe drinking water that protects public health, including the health of pregnant women, infants, and children, from dangerous contaminants. 

Response. Protecting public health through the provision of clean and safe drinking water is the top priority of Milwaukee Water Works and all drinking water utilities. To ensure that the health of our customers is protected, we rely on the Environmental Protection Agency to tell us what levels of certain contaminants in drinking water present a known public health risk, and to establish a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for these contaminants. It is then our job to treat our water so 

that it is in compliance with these established standards. 

While we take pride in providing safe drinking water to all of our customers, we 

understand the special importance of protecting the health of vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, infants, and children. We therefore appreciate 

that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to consider the effect of 

contaminants on vulnerable populations on several different occasions during the 

regulatory process. First, as EPA decides whether to regulate a given drinking 

water contaminant, SDWA Sec. 1412(b)(1)(C) requires the Administrator to take 

into consideration ‘‘the effect of such contaminants upon subgroups . . . (such as infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious 

illness, or other subpopulations) . . . at greater risk of adverse health effects.’’ 

Additionally, when proposing an enforceable MCL for a drinking water contaminant, SDWA Section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(V) requires EPA to consider the health effects 

of the contaminant on the general population as well as subgroups such as ‘‘infants, 

children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness,’’ 

and others that may be at greater health risk due to exposure to contaminants in 

drinking water. We are pleased that the SDWA statute requires the health and 

safety of these vulnerable subpopulations to be taken into account, and that these 

considerations are subsequently reflected in enforceable standards promulgated by 

EPA. 
164 

RESPONSES BY CARRIE LEWIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. I am always concerned about how cities and local governments are 

dealing with the unfunded mandates that are passed down from the Federal Government. I know stricter drinking water standards and clean water standards force 

many of our communities to either raise rates or seek additional funding from other 

sources. How can we ensure that utilities like yours are not facing the constant 

threat of having to raise rates and still meeting drinking water standards? 

Response. First, I want to make clear that the drinking water community believes 

that if sound scientific research demonstrates that a drinking water contaminant 

poses a human health risk, EPA should promulgate standards that protect the public to the maximum extent that can be feasibly attained. 

AMWA believes that the process established under the 1996 amendments to the 

Safe Drinking Water Act is the best mechanism to achieve the objective of protecting public health in a cost effective manner. After determining that the best 

available science warrants the regulation of a contaminant, EPA has 24 months to 

propose a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), which represents the level at 

which the contaminant would pose zero threat to public health. EPA also proposes 

a drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL), which is set as close to the 

MCLG as feasible, as defined by Sec. 1412(b)(4)(D). SDWA then provides EPA with 

an additional 18 months to promulgate a final MCLG and MCL. This MCL is an 

enforceable standard set as close to the MCLG as is feasible after considering factors such as the best available treatment technology and cost. 

Maintaining this process as EPA makes future drinking water contaminant regulatory decisions—particularly the 18-month period between the announcement of the 

proposed MCLG and MCL and the promulgation of the binding MCL—is essential 

to ensuring that regulations are based on sound science while also keeping costs 

under control. If this 18-month period were truncated, we would be concerned that 

EPA may be forced to issue binding MCLs without completely considering the technical or financial feasibility of the proposed standards. As a result, utilities could 

be required to comply with mandates that otherwise might have been found to be 

infeasible, or to spend excessive amounts of ratepayer dollars to attempt to meet 

these requirements. 

There are other steps Congress can take to help water utilities cope with regulatory compliance costs and protect the public from spikes in water rates. AMWA 

supports robust funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), 

which offers loans to help water systems improve their infrastructure to comply 

with Federal drinking water standards. EPA’s 2007 Drinking Water Needs Survey 

reported that the nation’s drinking water systems will need to spend nearly $335 

billion over the next 20 years just to maintain current levels of drinking water service, so for many communities DWSRF loans are a helpful supplement to local funding. 

Question 2. Please explain the process that your utility goes through in deciding 

how to spend the limited resources and how those decisions are affected by new regulations. 

Response. Every year, budgeting and spending decisions at Milwaukee Water 

Works become more challenging as we try to balance out spending with anticipated 

revenue. We also try to prioritize our budget wish list, separating ‘‘must-do’’ items 

such as meeting regulatory requirements and protecting public health and safety, 

from ‘‘important-to-do’’ items like some infrastructure projects. And last, there are 

the ‘‘nice-to-do’’ things. This list is growing longer each year because the ‘‘must-do’’ 

and ‘‘important-to-do’’ items take up a larger and larger part of available revenue. 

Municipal drinking water utilities in Wisconsin are regulated by the Public Service Commission, which allows the utility to recover the full cost of service plus a 

reasonable rate of return. Even so, it is always a difficult decision to request water 

rate increases. When the ‘‘must-do’’ list expands, such as when additional regulations are promulgated, costs are passed along to ratepayers and fewer ‘‘importantto-do’’ and ‘‘nice-to-do’’ projects get addressed. 

Question 3. What are some of the challenges that utilities face in responding to 

media reports about unregulated contaminants? 

Response. First, Milwaukee Water Works has the benefit of a strong, collaborative 

relationship with our local health department. Without that joint agency response 

to media reports about contaminants the utility would be very challenged to communicate the ‘‘risk’’ concepts to the public, such as pathways of exposure of chemicals, 

acceptable risk, and dose-response relationships. 

But even with the joint agency response, it is difficult to explain to the media and 

the public that trace levels of various substances have always been present in drink-
165 

ing water, although advances in technology now allow us to measure them at everlower concentrations. The mere ability to measure for these contaminants at smaller 

and smaller levels does not equate to increased public health risks, though this increased knowledge can be used to inform future research. 

Furthermore, it can be difficult to explain the concept of ‘‘less than’’ a detection 

limit in a lab sample to reporters who think that ‘‘<2’’ (‘‘less than 2’’) means that 

the compound is present at a level below 2. What this actually means is that the 

analytical method used has a lower limit below which the method cannot quantify 

an amount, and that the compound may or may not be present below that lower 

limit. But when the media is asking for conclusive answers on water quality measurements, it can be hard to explain that we are bound by the limits of our testing 

capabilities. 

Question 4. Did you ever request the EWG report data directly from EWG? Did 

you ever determine where their sample came from? 

Response. Milwaukee Water Works did not contact EWG directly following the release of their chromium-6 report. This decision was based on an earlier experience 

the utility had in trying to get the group to correct errors in the December 2009 

report which contained information on bromate. In that instance, Milwaukee Water 

Works believed that EWG incorrectly stated that our utility exceeded the regulatory 

limit for bromate based on a single value above the limit in their data set. Our view 

was that because the bromate regulation is based on a running annual average of 

samples, it is erroneous to report that a single sample value constitutes a violation. 

Milwaukee Water Works made multiple efforts to get EWG to correct this error 

in their bromate report, beginning 4 months before the report was published, but 

we were rebuffed. This report was very damaging to the utility, and fueled our belief 

that EWG is more interested in generating headlines than publishing valid data. 

For this reason, we decided that it would not be worthwhile to attempt to engage 

with the group following the release of the chromium-6 report. 

These beliefs were also reinforced when EWG chose to not directly advise Milwaukee Water Works of their chromium-6 test results, but instead released their 

data to the media. While I do understand that EWG alerted staff of water associations such as AMWA that a report about chromium-6 was coming, EWG did not provide specific information about the cities tested—only that there would be 35 cities 

mentioned in the report. EWG did not tell association staff the specific date of the 

report release until a few days before it hit the papers, and the group did not respond to association requests for information on the sample locations for the cities 

identified in the report. 

Question 5. Please explain the difficulty that the city has in communicating with 

citizens about the EWG report and what it means for them. 

Response. The most common question we received was, ‘‘Is the water safe to 

drink?’’ The Milwaukee Health Department felt confident to say that ‘‘there is no 

reason to believe the water is unsafe,’’ but that does not sound terribly reassuring. 

As I said before, water utilities rely on EPA to tell us which contaminants pose 

health risks to the public, and at this time the only Federal regulation of chromium6 in drinking water is through SDWA’s 100 ppb MCL for total chromium. Milwaukee’s water meets this standard, but the EWG report has caused a lot of confusion 

in the community. 

In an attempt to provide more clarity to the public, the Milwaukee Health Department confirmed that there was no disease in the community that chromium-6 would 

be expected to cause. But when dealing with a chronic (not acute) contaminant, that 

is not very reassuring. We also tried to explain that nothing about the water had 

changed—there had been no recent spill or other event that added the chromium6 to the water. But again, simply telling the public not to worry because this contaminant had probably been in the water for some time is not very effective, either. 

Question 6. What is the expected background concentration of hexavalent chromium in your source water? Is your source water from groundwater or surface water 

combination? What causes the background concentrations of chromium (trivalent 

and hexavalent) in your source water to vary? 

Response. Milwaukee Water Works did not expect any hexavalent chromium to 

be found in our source water. The intakes for our treatment plants are 1.5 miles 

out in Lake Michigan, a pristine surface water source, and are rarely impacted by 

land-based activities associated with chromium use. We do not (yet) have any information about whether or not this parameter will vary, or what the cause may be. 

We have initiated quarterly sampling of source water, treatment plant finished 

water, and distribution system water, consistent with the guidance published by 

EPA. 
166 

Question 7. How can chromium be removed from public drinking water systems? 

Response. EPA reports that treatment methods such as coagulation/filtration, ion 

exchange, reverse osmosis, and lime softening are effective for treating water to 

comply with the current total chromium MCL of 100 ppb. But it is less clear how 

effective these methods may be in treating water to achieve lower levels of chromium-6. 

Several water utilities in California are currently conducting studies to answer 

this question. Three technologies being evaluated at the pilot scale for use by drinking water systems include strong base anion exchange resin, weak base anion exchange resin and reduction/coagulation/filtration (RCF) approaches. Reverse osmosis 

is not considered viable for utilities in some regions, such as California, because of 

the high percentage of reject water. However, the ultimate efficacy of these treatment options will also depend on a combination of factors, such as: 

• The level of chromium-6 permitted in finished water; 

• The quality of the raw water being treated; 

• Operational costs; and 

• Treatment waste disposal options and costs. 

Question 8. Describe your challenges with the conversion of trivalent chromium 

in source water to hexavalent chromium by water treatment operations. 

Response. Milwaukee Water Works does not have information about this yet, but 

hope to learn more as we conduct quarterly sampling. 

Question 9. Utilities have raised concerns with my office about EPA’s decisions regarding the technical assistance to monitor for chromium 6, including the lack of 

a fully validated analytical method, inability for the agency to collect and use the 

data generated and lack of explanation of how to communicate the health effects 

to the public. How can EPA clarify and assist Milwaukee with the technical assistance it provided? 

Response. Staff from Milwaukee Water Works did have a fruitful telephone conversation with officials from EPA’s Region 5 and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. We had a good discussion about the tradeoffs of the various analytical methods, as well as the merits of using an experienced laboratory certified in 

the type of method (if not the exact method), and the importance of as short a holding time as possible prior to analysis. 

Despite these discussions, further clarification would be helpful. Of greatest value 

would be some language for risk communication when there is no or little information about a contaminant and its public health effects. Chromium-6 will not be the 

last contaminant that will pose a risk communication challenge to utilities. It is 

very difficult to communicate uncertainty to customers without losing their confidence, but scientific uncertainty is a reality. If Milwaukee Water Works could 

quote the EPA about this, it would improve the credibility of the communication. 

Additional information that would be very helpful would be more about the chemistry of chromium-3 and chromium-6, in simple terms that we could use for our customers. We would also appreciate more information from EPA on which specific 

questions to ask a laboratory about how it would verify its sample results (QA/QC 

procedures) in order to support the method detection level and method reporting levels outlined in the guidance. 

Question 10. Are you supportive of a drinking water regulatory process that relies 

on science to help guide decisionmaking? Do you think the current SDWA provides 

a clear, transparent, science driven process for making decisions regarding drinking 

water regulation? 

Response. Yes, Milwaukee Water Works and AMWA believe that the drinking 

water regulatory process must be based on sound, peer-reviewed scientific research. 

The current SDWA requires a careful, transparent, science-based route to guide the 

development of drinking water contaminant regulations, and we support following 

this process for all such determinations in the future. 

Question 11. Is there anything else you would like to add for the record? 

Response. I would just reiterate that our top priority is protecting public health 

by delivering clean and safe drinking water to our customers. Utilities rely on EPA 

to conduct careful, unbiased research to determine at what concentration various 

drinking water contaminants carry human health impacts, and pride themselves on 

complying with the drinking water regulations that result. 
167 

RESPONSE BY CARRIE LEWIS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question. Ms. Lewis, you have testified that the Milwaukee Water Works goes beyond the current monitoring requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, monitoring for over five hundred (500) contaminants. 

Doesn’t this show that additional monitoring to protect the public’s right-to-know 

can be feasible and cost-effective? 

Response. All public drinking water systems must comply with EPA regulations 

that require finished water to be tested for more than ninety different contaminants 

that are, based upon the best available science, thought to pose the most significant 

risk to human health in drinking water. Utilities must report the results of this 

testing to the public on an annual basis. Every 5 years, EPA is required by SDWA 

to issue a new Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, which can ultimately require utilities to temporarily monitor for as many as thirty additional unregulated 

contaminants. This framework allows water systems to make informed projections 

on how much money should be budgeted for water quality testing. 

For a variety of reasons, Milwaukee Water Works has decided to devote additional 

resources to testing its water for many more contaminants than is required by EPA. 

But this decision comes at a cost, with our testing regime costing our ratepayers 

roughly $200,000 per year. 

While other utilities could also test their water supplies for more and more contaminants, we must remember that this additional testing would come at a cost to 

them as well. This would mean either higher water rates for the public, or fewer 

dollars available to address other needs such as infrastructure replacements and upgrades. We believe that each individual utility is best equipped to decide what, if 

any, testing beyond EPA’s requirements for contaminants linked to a significant 

health risks makes sense for their own community. 

To give another example of testing costs, the Metropolitan Utilities District of 

Omaha, Nebraska reported in a January 13, 2011 news release that its compliance 

with EPA’s guidance recommending quarterly testing for chromium-6 will cost the 

utility $12,000 per year. This may not sound like much, but the utility reported that 

it represents nearly 0.9 percent of its annual water quality budget of $1.4 million. 

It is therefore easy to predict how these costs could dramatically impact utility 

budgets if testing for more and more contaminants were to be required. 

RESPONSE BY CARRIE LEWIS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR CARPER

Question. How can the Federal Government focus its efforts to improve drinking 

water quality on pollution prevention? What kinds of tools and programs exist to 

prevent the pollution of drinking water and what new ones are needed? 

Response. The drinking water community has long believed that the best way to 

ensure safe drinking water is to keep harmful contaminants and pollutants out of 

source waters in the first place. Fortunately, various Federal laws currently contribute to this objective. For example, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives EPA the authority to restrict the use of pesticides 

that may find their way into source waters. The Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) gives EPA the authority to restrict the introduction of new contaminants 

into the marketplace, particularly ones that may find their way into our waterways. 

And under its Drinking Water Strategy, EPA is beginning to share information and 

information needs between the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water and the 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Just last year, President Obama signed into law the ‘‘Secure and Responsible 

Drug Disposal Act,’’ which requires the Attorney General to issue regulations enabling communities to more easily hold take-back events to collect unused pharmaceutical drugs. This should reduce the amount of unused prescription drugs that 

consumers flush into the wastewater system. And the most recent Farm Bill authorized the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), through which farmers 

and water systems can receive financial and technical assistance on collaborative 

projects to improve water quality in their shared watershed. 

While these policies and programs help protect drinking water quality, more can 

be done. For example, EPA can better use its authority to require chemical manufacturers and importers to perform reporting, recordkeeping and testing of chemicals 

to determine the health effects of these chemicals and also restrict their use if they 

are found to harm public health through drinking water exposure. 

The protections of the Clean Water Act could be better used to leverage the protection of drinking water. For example, the protection of source waters for drinking 

water uses could and should be a consideration in addressing non-point source pol-
168 

lution problems in the development of TMDLs in a way that is consistent with the 

drinking water MCLs. EPA should work to develop water quality criteria standards 

for contaminants that are regulated in drinking water, particularly those with acute 

effects, such as Cryptosporidium. 

Finally, the 2012 Farm Bill will offer an opportunity to reduce the flow of nitrates 

and other contaminants from farm operations into water bodies by linking Federal 

agricultural assistance with activities that protect and preserve nearby water quality. AMWA hopes to work with members of the Senate to craft policies that achieve 

these goals. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Mr. Chuck Murray, Fairfax Water, we 

thank you so much for being here, General Manager. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES MURRAY, GENERAL MANAGER, 

FAIRFAX WATER 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the 

Committee. 

My name is Charles Murray, I am General Manager of Fairfax 

Water, Virginia’s largest drinking water utility and one of the 25 

largest drinking water utilities in the Nation. 

Fairfax Water is a non-profit public water authority governed by 

a 10-member board of directors who are appointed by the board of 

supervisors of Fairfax County. Fairfax Water provides retail or 

wholesale service to nearly 1.7 million people in northern Virginia. 

That translates into 1.7 million reasons to provide drinking water 

of the highest quality. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the American Water Works Association, or AWWA. We welcome the opportunity to speak to the 

drinking water issues that are before the Committee. 

AWWA is an international non-profit scientific and educational 

association of professionals dedicated to safe drinking water. We 

continually support drinking water regulations that are developed 

through a transparent process based on the best available science 

and that provide meaningful public health protection in an affordable manner. Two of the key issues before the Committee are 

hexavalent chromium, perchlorate and proposals to mandate regulation within a year. We believe it is in the public interest to address these concerns with these contaminants within the regulatory 

framework that is already in place. 

As you know, the Safe Drinking Water Act mandates rigorous 

process for evaluating risks to public health and determining what 

risk management actions are appropriate. The Act requires that 

the regulatory process use the best available peer-reviewed science, 

a principle that this Administration strongly endorses. 

These principles are critical to ensure that actual risks are addressed and that limited resources are directed based on complete 

information. Should funds be misdirected on risks that have not 

been fully or appropriately vetted, a community’s resources cannot 

be recovered to address the genuine risks and other important community needs. 

As I stated earlier, we support drinking water regulations that 

are developed through a transparent process, based on the best 

science and provide meaningful health protection in an affordable 

manner. This foundation of sound science must not be compromised. The Safe Drinking Water Act affords the Environmental 

Protection Agency a robust, transparent methodology upon which 
169 

it can evaluate, propose and promulgate regulations. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation before the Senate on chromium and 

perchlorate seems to discount the principles of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, the same principles to which the Administration has 

committed. 

The same can be said for EPA’s recent actions. The tone, delivery 

and content of EPA’s responses to EWG’s report regarding 

hexavalent chromium implies that regulatory change is an urgent 

and foregone conclusion. EPA has gone outside the structure set 

forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which places drinking water 

utilities in an untenable position. 

These actions cause me great concern. EPA has urged drinking 

water utilities to collect samples throughout the treatment process 

to better understand the occurrence and concentration of 

hexavalent chromium. However, the agency has not afforded itself 

the benefit of the data yielded in this sample collection, because 

there is no national repository for the data. Had the process established under the Safe Drinking Water Act been followed, the monitoring would have been conducted under the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule and would resolve any issues relating to the 

analytical methodology and data collection. 

As it stands, a community now must decide, absent critical information, such as a clear understanding of the actual risks associated with the presence of very low levels of hexavalent chromium, 

if it should expend the resources to conduct this monitoring. Should 

a drinking water utility conduct this monitoring, how will it convey 

the results and their meaning to its customers? 

At Fairfax Water, we made the decision to monitor. This decision 

was based on the level of concern expressed by our customers. We 

have monitored and found that one of our water sources has no detectable level of hexavalent chromium. In the other source, the 

level was found at the reporting limit of the method, so, extremely 

low levels. 

But the real question that I am constantly asked to answer is, 

is the water safe? Is the level of hexavalent chromium and the level 

of perchlorate or the level of the next new contaminant of interest 

in the water going to harm me and my family? These are valid 

questions, ones that must be answered by a consistent, robust, 

transparent framework. 

So you may ask, how do we, Fairfax Water, answer these questions. We posted our results to our website and explain that there 

is a process in place at EPA to evaluate the risks and make decisions about the appropriate level of regulation to address public 

health concerns. We explain that EPA is currently reviewing the 

risks and will finalize its risk assessment for hexavalent chromium 

later this year. At that time, EPA can make a determination if further regulatory action is warranted. 

We acknowledge that the processes for determining the actual 

risks for human health from different substances or compounds can 

seem frustratingly slow. Science can be complicated. However, it is 

only by applying methodical, peer-reviewed studies that we can 

know where actual risk lies. We encourage the Congress to allow 

the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule, the contaminant 

candidate list and the 6-year review processes created in the 1996 
170 

amendments to the Safe Drinking Water be allowed to work. EPA 

and AWWA and its members are committed to supporting the Act 

and these tools that help make sound regulatory decisions. 

Further, we pledge to continue to provide field data, participate 

in studies related to these processes, and make our methodologies 

transparent. We realize these are tough times for the Federal 

budget. 

Senator BOXER. I am sorry, sir, could you just finish that 

thought? 

Mr. MURRAY. The bottom line is that Congress does not need to 

legislative individual drinking water standards. The Safe Drinking 

Water Act was amended in 1996 to provide a scientifically sound 

and transparent method for selecting substances for regulation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES MURRAY, GENERAL MANAGER, FAIRFAX WATER, VA., ON

BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. 

My name is Charles Murray and I am General Manager of Fairfax Water, Virginia’s largest drinking water utility and one of the nation’s 25 largest drinking 

water utilities. Fairfax Water is a non-profit, public water authority governed by a 

10-member board of directors who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors of 

Fairfax County. Fairfax Water provides retail or wholesale service to nearly 1.7 million people in the Northern Virginia communities of Fairfax, Loudon and Prince 

William counties, the city of Alexandria, the Town of Herndon, Ft. Belvoir, and Dulles Airport. To my staff and me at Fairfax Water, that translates to nearly 1.7 million reasons to provide drinking water quality of the highest quality. 

This morning, I am testifying on behalf of the American Water Works Association 

(AWWA), and we welcome this opportunity to speak to the drinking water issues 

that are before the committee today. AWWA is an international, nonprofit, scientific 

and educational association of professionals dedicated to safe drinking water. We 

have always supported drinking water regulations that are developed through a 

transparent process, are based on the best available science, and that provide meaningful public health protection in an affordable manner. 

Two of the key issues before the Committee are chromium-6 and perchlorate. As 

you know, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates a rigorous process for 

evaluating risks to public health and determining what risk management actions 

are appropriate. The Act requires that the regulatory process use the best available, 

peer-reviewed science, a principle this administration has strongly endorsed, as described by the March 9, 2009, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Scientific Integrity. These principles are important to ensure 

that the Agency directs water providers to address actual risks and doesn’t misdirect limited resources based on incomplete or faulty information. Once misdirected, a community’s resources cannot easily be recovered to address genuine 

risks and other important community needs. 

Unfortunately, the recent EPA actions on chromium-6 seem to discount the principles of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the same principles to which the Administration is committed. 

For example: 

1. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. EPA’s recent chromium-6 monitoring guidance does not employ a fully validated analytical method. 

Nor are there validated performance standards for laboratories. Absent these 

things, it is not possible to be confident about the error bar around any sample, to 

compare samples analyzed by different laboratories, or even to confidently compare 

different samples analyzed by the same laboratory. Moreover, there is no mechanism provided for the Agency’s collection of test results so as to inform future potential regulatory decisions. Given these shortcomings, the scientific value of the data 

that utilities may collect is unclear. 

The Agency has available to it a regulatory structure that addresses these issues 

through the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). 

UCMR is a time-tested process for obtaining a meaningful and actionable national 

occurrence dataset for contaminants of potential concern in drinking water. All laboratories currently engaged in UCMR monitoring are using well-characterized analytical methods that meet known performance requirements. Similarly, sampling re-
171 

quirements are developed with the goal of producing a dataset that supports regulatory decisionmaking. If the Agency wished utilities to undertake extensive testing 

for chromium-6, we believe the UCMR process would have provided the appropriate 

tool. 

2. Risk Communication / Health Advisories. EPA has not completed a risk assessment to support its recommendations on chromium-6. Neither water systems nor the 

public have a clear idea of whether minute quantities of chromium-6 represent a 

health risk, and if so, the nature of that risk. Therefore, utilities are placed in the 

untenable position of not being able to explain to their customers the relevance of 

the monitoring that EPA has recommended. Risk communication with the public on 

potential health effects in drinking water is difficult under the best of circumstances. The Agency’s seemingly hurried response to chromium-6 questions compounds this challenge. 

The preliminary Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review 

on chromium-6 has not completed peer review. The Toxicological Review is built 

upon a number of embedded assumptions, some of which are known to be controversial. Moreover, the IRIS document is just the first step in the risk assessment process, as it only characterizes the potential hazard associated with chromium-6. Actually completing the risk assessment process will require substantial effort by EPA. 

To date, EPA has not clearly conveyed this process to the public. 

3. Taking Regulatory Action. The tone, delivery, and content of EPA’s chromium6 action implies that regulatory change is urgent and a foregone conclusion. In fact, 

the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for total chromium was addressed 

in the second 6-year review of drinking water regulations that was published on 

March 29, 2010. As a result of this review, EPA stated that ‘‘The Agency does not 

believe a revision to the NPDWR [National Primary Drinking Water Regulations] 

for total chromium is appropriate at this time. A reassessment of the health risks 

associated with chromium exposure is being initiated, and the Agency does not believe that it is appropriate to revise the NPDWR while that effort is in process.’’ 

EPA has a clear process for reviewing existing Maximum Contaminant Level 

Goals (MCLGs) and MCLs in response to evolving science. Under the SDWA, the 

decision on whether or not an MCL should be revised includes a consideration of 

whether doing so provides a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction. In its 

two 6-year reviews, the Agency has had opportunities to lower the MCL for chromium and elected not to do so. We believe this important fact should have been conveyed by the Agency in its recent memorandum on chromium-6. 

The decisionmaking process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act is consistent 

with both the Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity and the more recent 

Executive Order on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. These two directives emphasize the importance of making smart decisions based on the best available science so that regulations result in a public health benefit. 

AWWA believes EPA’s recent activity related to chromium-6 discounts the scientific rigor of the SDWA and contravenes the spirit of the Presidential memorandum and executive order. We believe that future actions on chromium-6 and 

other contaminants must use proven processes and be better informed by sound 

science. 

PERCHLORATE

We believe that the same scientific processes and faithfulness to the Safe Drinking Water Act must be maintained in considering whether or how to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. As you know, the SDWA defines three key criteria for 

regulation of contaminants: 

i. the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons; 

ii. the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that 

the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at 

levels of public health concern; and 

iii. in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant 

presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served 

by public water systems. 

Given the weight of evidence available at that time and AWWA’s independent assessment of occurrence and exposure, we concurred with EPA’s preliminary determination that regulation of perchlorate would not present a ‘‘meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.’’ We 

continue to support that preliminary determination. AWWA also concurs with the 

agency’s Inspector General, who said that regulatory action under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act is not appropriate. 
172 

Data from the UCMR has revealed that detection of perchlorate in drinking water 

was geographically widespread but at very low concentrations. Significantly, there 

is little correlation between perchlorate detection in drinking water and known 

points of perchlorate release to the environment identified by the USEPA (with the 

exception of certain points in the Lower Colorado River). Perchlorate has been detected in drinking water in less than 5 percent of the nation’s large community 

water systems (>10,000 population served). When detected, perchlorate was typically 

present at concentrations of less than 12 ug/L and was generally found in less than 

one-half of the sources for systems which sampled multiple sources. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We acknowledge that scientific processes for determining the actual risks to 

human health from different substances or compounds can seem frustratingly slow. 

However, it is only by following methodical, peer-reviewed studies that we can know 

where actual risk lies. We recommend that Congress allow the UCMR, Contaminant 

Candidate List and Six-Year Review processes created in the 1996 Amendments to 

the Safe Drinking Water Act to be allowed to work. AWWA and its members pledge 

to continue to provide field data and studies related to these processes and to continue to make our methodologies transparent. 

We also recommend that the resources of community water systems and more significantly their customers be focused on the direct threats to safe water about which 

we are certain. Studies by AWWA and EPA show that hundreds of billions of dollars 

must be invested in water infrastructure soon and very soon if we are to continue 

to provide safe and sufficient water to our fellow citizens and the health protection 

that wastewater systems provide. We realize that water utilities also have responsibilities to maintain or work toward self-sustaining rates, exercise the best asset 

management practices, and better communicate the need for investment in water 

infrastructure. We pledge to continue these efforts. 

We realize these are tough times for the Federal budget. However, there is a continuing need for additional funding for human health effects research for drinking 

water contaminants. We urge Congress to support additional funding in this arena 

and we urge that EPA’s research efforts be tied more closely to its regulatory program. We would like to see the Agency’s finite water research dollars prioritized toward projects that study water contaminants. 

We thank the Committee for its efforts to reauthorize and improve the State revolving loan fund program in the last Congress. We offer our cooperation in working 

toward similar legislation in this Congress. 

CONCLUSION

The bottom line is that Congress should not legislate individual drinking water 

standards. The SDWA was amended in 1996 to provide a scientifically sound and 

transparent method for selecting the appropriate substances for regulation and for 

selecting the appropriate maximum contaminant level for contaminants. We should 

allow the best available science, not the political process, to be the ultimate driver 

in regulatory decisions. 

AWWA and its members look forward to continuing to work with all facets of the 

drinking water community to ensure that the Nation focuses its resources on the 

greatest threats to public health, and that the nation’s drinking water supply remains safe and affordable. 

RESPONSES BY CHARLES MURRAY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. We hear a lot from the smaller drinking water utilities around the 

country about problems complying with unfunded drinking water mandates such as 

new rules or additional testing. How does Fairfax Water respond to these mandates 

and challenges? 

Response. Although Fairfax Water is not a small utility, the State Revolving Loan 

Fund program is an essential tool used by small and medium-sized drinking-water 

utilities to fund regulatory program-compliance efforts. The funding for this program is essential to providing safe drinking water to those served by the smaller 

systems. Fairfax Water is not eligible to receive such funding, so these costs are 

simply passed on to our customers. 

Question 2. I appreciate your support for drinking water infrastructure funding. 

I want you to know that I believe one of the best ways to deal with the many issues 

involving drinking water is to continue to fund the State Revolving Loan Fund program. We cannot expect our communities to continue to provide safe drinking water 
173 

if they do not have the resources to meet their infrastructure needs. I know you understand the tight budgets we are all facing. Could you explain the process that 

your utility goes through in deciding bow to spend the limited resources available 

to Fairfax water and how those decisions are affected by new regulations? 

Response. This is a critical question. Second only to the importance of public 

health and safety in the delivery of public drinking water is the financing for that 

water service. It is probably the No. 1 concern of ratepayers and a non-profit public 

utility such as ours. Fairfax Water uses a 10-year financial-planning horizon. We 

carefully look at our planning, capital improvements, and operation and maintenance needs, and then estimate our priorities for the next decade. Drawing on that 

information, we create a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan and a financial-planning document. These documents are the inputs into our rate model. Our Board of 

Directors reviews these plans annually. Our staff also conducts an annual analysis 

of our rates, fees, and charges to ensure that we capture the true cost of service. 

Fairfax Water typically raises its rates by a few cents each year to keep up with 

the increasing cost of business. Steady, small increases, consistently over time, are 

much better for our customers than large, jarring increases intermittently. This consistent approach has helped Fairfax Water maintain a AAA financial rating, thereby 

keeping to a minimum the cost of borrowing monies. 

When new regulations come along, it is important that the process for developing 

these regulations recognizes that utilities need time to factor the cost of the regulation into not only the financial-planning process, but also the standard operations 

of the utility. Taking regulations out of the normal development process and shortening the timeframe does not allow a utility adequate time to prepare financially, 

much less physically, for the implementation of new treatment techniques. 

As technology allows us to measure compounds at ever-lower levels, the ability 

to remove compounds becomes more complex and exponentially more expensive. As 

lower standards are contemplated, it often forces drinking-water utilities to consider 

treatment techniques beyond conventional methods, such as membrane filtration. 

Such methods are extremely costly. There must be sufficient time in the regulatory 

development process to allow drinking-water utilities to plan, fund, install, and 

train for new technologies. 

Question 3. In your testimony, you discuss EPA’s issuance of guidance outside of 

the UCMR process. Please tell the committee bow testing for chromium-6 would 

have benefited from being included in the UCMR instead of a separate guidance 

document? 

Response. The EPA has suggested that drinking-water utilities collect samples 

throughout the treatment process to better understand the occurrence and concentration of hexavalent chromium. However, the EPA has not afforded itself the 

benefit of this data. Under the proposed action, there is no national collection repository for the results. Had the monitoring been conducted under the Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule, any issues relating to analytical methodology and 

data collection would have been resolved. Using the methodology established in the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, all data collected would be available to 

EPA for analysis. As it stands, absent critical information such as a clear understanding of the actual risks associated with the presence of very low levels of 

hexavalent chromium, a community must now decide if it should expend the resources to conduct this monitoring. And should a drinking-water utility conduct this 

monitoring, how will it convey the results to its customers? 

Question 4. Where is Fairfax most interested in focusing resources over the next 

few years? 

Response. Reinvestment in distribution-system infrastructure is what we are most 

interested in. 

Question 5. What are some of the challenges that utilities face in responding to 

media reports about unregulated contaminants? 

Response. Undoubtedly the biggest challenge of responding to questions involving 

unregulated contaminants is the assumption that drinking water is unsafe just because a contaminant is being discussed or is in question. The purpose of research 

and testing for unregulated contaminants is to determine whether these compounds 

are found at a frequency and level of concern. Utilities often are put in a difficult 

position of trying to respond to customer concerns before the science is fully developed. 

Question 6. Are you supportive of a drinking water regulatory process that relies 

on science to help guide decisionmaking? Do you think the current SDWA provides 

a clear, transparent, science driven process for making decisions regarding drinking 

water regulation? 
174 

Response. Yes, I am absolutely supportive of a drinking-water regulatory process 

that relies on science to help guide decisionmaking. As I testified, I believe the Safe 

Drinking Water Act mandates a rigorous process for evaluating risks to public 

health and determining what risk-management actions are appropriate. The Safe 

Drinking Water Act requires that the regulatory process use the best available, 

peer-reviewed science. These principles are critical to ensure that actual risks are 

addressed and that limited resources are assigned to the highest risks based on 

complete and accurate information. Should funds be misdirected on risks that have 

not been fully or appropriately vetted, a community’s resources cannot be recovered 

to address genuine risks and other important community needs. 

I support drinking-water regulations that are developed through a transparent 

process, are based on the best available science, and that provide meaningful publichealth protection in an affordable manner. This foundation of sound science must 

not be compromised. The Safe Drinking Water Act affords the EPA a robust, transparent methodology upon which it can evaluate, propose, and promulgate regulations. 

RESPONSE BY CHARLES MURRAY TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR CARPER

Question. How can the Federal Government focus its efforts to improve drinking 

water quality on pollution prevention? What kinds of tools and programs exist to 

prevent the pollution of drinking water and what new ones are needed? 

Response. As I testified, I support drinking-water regulations that are developed 

through a transparent process, are based on the best available science, and that provide meaningful public-health protection in an affordable manner. This basis of 

sound science must not be compromised. The Safe Drinking Water Act affords the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a robust, transparent methodology upon 

which it can evaluate, propose, and promulgate regulations. 

In addition to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act provides real 

opportunities for improved source-water protection. The EPA can link the discharge 

permitting authorities of the Clean Water Act with the vulnerabilities identified in 

the Source Water Assessments required by the Safe Drinking Water Act and create 

safer, cleaner sources for drinking water by limiting upstream discharges of contaminants. 

Senator BOXER. OK, thank you very much. 

Dr. Burke, I want you to know that Senator Cardin is very proud 

that you are here today. I am going to put his introduction of you 

into the record. But I think I should say a couple of words about 

you. 

You are from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public 

Health. You serve as a professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management, Associate Dean of Public Health Practice and 

Training, Director of both the Johns Hopkins Center for Excellence 

in Environmental Public Health Tracking and the Center for Excellence in Environmental Health Practice. You are the Chair of the 

National Academy of Sciences Committee on Improving Risk Analysis, along with positions on several other commissions and boards, 

and lots of other things. An award winner, and we welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. BURKE, PH.D., MPH, PROFESSOR 

AND ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE, 

JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 

DIRECTOR OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS RISK SCIENCES AND 

PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE 

Mr. BURKE. Thank you, Senator. It is good to be here, and I have 

submitted written testimony. I would like to hit some of the high 

points of the discussion, though, and summarize. 

As you mentioned, I chair the National Academy panel on how 

EPA does risk assessment. Today, I would like to address three 
175 

things. One, the broad issue of chromium VI in water; second, our 

current approaches to risk assessment; and finally, leave you with 

some recommendations as we think about how we protect drinking 

water in the future. 

First of all, being a professor, I had to give you some pictures 

and some slides. At the end of my testimony, there are some pictures that show just how mobile chromium is in the environment. 

Although Hudson County, NJ, didn’t make it into the movie, certainly as a chromate capital throughout the Nation, New Jersey 

grappled with this issue of chromium moving through the environment and it is very soluble and it is not surprising that we are beginning to find it as we look. 

Perhaps most relevant today is that I led the States’ efforts to 

investigate the chromium slag, and also to look at drinking water, 

and conducted some of the first tests of toxics in drinking water. 

To the issue of can we do it, is it feasible, we have made great 

progress in reducing toxic chemicals in the water. 

Now, the current EPA standard for chromium in drinking water 

is outdated. It does not reflect current science. Because our understanding has evolved, as you have heard today. There is little argument today that chromium VI is a carcinogen. It is a carcinogen 

by the route of oral exposure, drinking water. Also, combined with 

the exploratory studies of the Environmental Working Group, this 

is not a surprise to scientists in the field, we have assumed that 

chromium VI, the water-soluble part of chromium, would be 

present in the Nation’s drinking water, and indeed, we are beginning to understand that evidence. 

This is a wake-up call. But we have broader issues. The challenges of chemical pollutants in drinking water go far beyond that 

very narrow risk that EPA now regulates. We have learned that 

virtually anything we flush down our drains shows up in low levels 

in our tap water, from personal care products to fuel additives, 

pharmaceuticals to persistent toxics, we know that water contains 

a complicated mixture of chemicals. It is time for us to rethink how 

we address these. 

If you look at the way EPA does its work, one substance at a 

time, one environmental medium at a time, it takes an awful long 

time. In fact, if we are going to continue this one at a time process, 

our National Academy panel that looked at this said this system 

is bogged down and sometimes it takes 10 to 20 years for a risk 

assessment to be completed. 

There are inherent uncertainties in the science. They have made 

risk assessments a convenient target for those who seek to avoid 

regulation or the cost of remediation. We have witnessed these battles over MTBE, perchlorate, arsenic and now chromium VI. Unfortunately, raising doubt about public health impacts has become a 

successful strategy for delaying action. 

As a former State regulator, I am a realist. I understand the concerns about costs. There are no quick solutions to removing toxic 

substances from our drinking water. Our tap water reflects our 

way of life. 

But if we are going to be responsible and preserve our drinking 

water resources, we have to move forward. So I would like to con-
176 

clude with a brief list of recommendations for the Committee to 

consider. 

First, this one at a time, 20-year process, is bogged down. We 

have to be more efficient. We need to shift from reaction to chemicals in the water to prevention of contamination. We have to improve the protection of our surface in-ground water resources. We 

have to expand State and regional water monitoring efforts. 

The Environmental Working Group did a great service, I think, 

by conducting this evaluation. But it is unfortunate that our States 

and our EPA regions don’t have the capacity to conduct this kind 

of monitoring. 

We have to recognize the potential cumulative impact of this 

mixture of multiple contaminants, many of which have common 

health end points, effects on development and neurological development. Most importantly, perhaps, we have to advance our drinking 

water treatment technologies to better remove contaminants and 

their precursors. 

Controlling pathogens has been a cornerstone of public health to 

prevent infectious disease. Now we must also recognize that monitoring and reducing chemical contamination in our drinking water 

is an essential component of our public health efforts to prevent 

chronic disease. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. I am 

anxious to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. BURKE, PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR PUBLIC

HEALTH PRACTICE, JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND

DIRECTOR OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS RISK SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works, Oversight Hearing on Public Health and Drinking Water Issues. I am 

Dr. Thomas Burke, Professor and Associate Dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg 

School of Public Health. I am also Director of Johns Hopkins Risk Science and Public Policy Institute. I have served as a member of the National Academy of Sciences 

Board on Environmental Science and Toxicology, and am a Member of the EPA 

Science Advisory Board. I also served as Chair of the National Academy of Sciences 

Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA. Perhaps 

most relevant to today’s topic, I served as Director of Science and Research at the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and in response to tremendous concerns about the State’s high cancer rates, led the first State efforts to monitor and reduce toxic chemical contaminants in drinking water. Later as Deputy 

Commissioner of Health for the State, I participated in the State efforts to implement the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act and to establish health-based standards for toxic pollutants. 

It is also relevant to today’s hearing to tell you that I grew up in Jersey City, 

in Hudson County New Jersey, the nation’s center of chromate production during 

much of the past century. Later, I led the State Health Department efforts to investigate the public health impacts of the uncontrolled disposal of billions of pounds 

of chromium slag. I am all too familiar with our historical failure to act to control 

worker and population exposures to chromium 6. As you can see in the picture 1, 

I am also familiar with the great mobility of the water-soluble chrome 6 in the environment. This picture is shows the bright yellow chromium in a rain-flooded area 

near one of the hundreds of disposal sites throughout the community. There were 

mountains of this slag known as the ‘chemical mountains’ throughout the county. 

My wife Marguerite even recalls learning to ice skate on the frozen yellow water 

near one of the chromate plants. Picture 2 shows the basement of a home near a 

disposal site after flooding. Those crystals are chromium, most likely with a high 

concentration of the carcinogenic chromium 6. This hazard touches many communities throughout the country, including my current home, Baltimore. Picture 3 

show the remediation work underway at a former chromate plant in the Inner Harbor. Not a good place to try to contain a highly soluble carcinogenic pollutant. 
177 

The EPA standard for chromium in drinking water is outdated, and does not reflect current science. Our understanding of the public health hazards of chromium 

has been continually evolving over the past 70 years—from early recognition of the 

acute effects of high exposure on the skin, respiratory and digestive systems; to the 

epidemiological studies demonstrating high lung cancer rates in workers. Now, the 

findings of the National Toxicology Program of oral and intestinal cancers in laboratory animals from ingestion of water soluble chromium 6, coupled with epidemiological evidence from communities exposed through contaminated drinking water in 

China, provide a new perspective on the public health risks. In addition, the EPA 

has recently determined that hexavalent chromium is ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to 

humans’’ via the oral route of exposure. (EPA 2010) Additionally, available evidence 

indicates that chromium interacts with DNA, resulting in DNA damage and 

mutagenesis. Based on the weight of the available evidence, hexavalent chromium 

is proposed to act through a mutagenic mode of carcinogenic action. These findings, 

coupled with the Environmental Working Group (EWG 2010) report of the widespread presence of chromium 6 in the nation’s drinking water supplies indicate it 

is time to act to understand and reduce population risks. 

California has been leading the Nation in the testing of drinking water supplies 

for chromium 6. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

has proposed a Public Health Goal of .06 ppb. This is a sound public health approach and is consistent with the New Jersey’s Safe Drinking Water Act, which 

specifies that drinking water standards for carcinogens be based on a health-based 

goal of one in one million. The recent guidance issued by EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson, also represents a step in the right direction in recognizing and addressing 

the hazards of chromium 6. 

The public health challenges of chemical pollutants in drinking water go far beyond the current very narrow list of regulated pollutants. The nation is more dependent than ever on re-used water. With modern analytical methods we now know 

that the chemicals we flush down that drain are showing up in low levels in our 

tap water. From personal care products to fuel additives; pharmaceuticals to persistent toxic chemicals; we now know that our water contains a complicated mixture 

of chemicals with a broad range of potential yet unknown public health impacts. 

Our national biomonitoring efforts have also indicated that these chemicals are 

present in our bodies. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act has been tremendously successful in monitoring the 

quality of our water supplies and reducing exposure to harmful pollutants. At both 

the State and national levels the compliance with monitoring and health based 

standards has been excellent and continually improving. We witnessed great reductions in population exposure to organic solvents and disinfection by products. (This 

despite the fact that states and EPA faced an outcry of protests from industry claiming ‘‘it couldn’t be done, the costs would be prohibitive’’!) 

Now we face new challenges. The recent NAS report on risk assessment at EPA 

found that the system is ‘‘bogged down’’. (NAS 2009) The timeframe for risk assessments is often decades long. The inherent uncertainties toxicology and epidemiology 

studies have made the risk assessments a convenient target for those who seek to 

avoid regulation or the costs of remediation. We have witnessed these battles over 

MTB, perchlorate, arsenic, and now chromium 6. Unfortunately, raising doubt about 

public health impacts has become a successful strategy for delaying action. 

The NAS Report ‘‘Science and Decisions’’ (NAS 2009) recommends that EPA begin 

to move beyond the current single substance, single media approach to environmental decisions. From a public health perspective it is important that we begin to 

recognize and address the cumulative effects that constant low-level exposures to 

chemical may be having on our health. Consideration of the cumulative impacts 

should guide not only our assessment of public health risks, but also our enforcement strategies to prevent pollution and our engineering strategies to improve 

drinking water quality. 

As a former State regulator, I am a realist. As a member of the EPA SAB I am 

also aware of the limitations of the Agency’s resources. There are no quick or solutions to removing toxic chemicals from our drinking water. Our tap water reflects 

our way of life and all the benefits that chemicals have brought us. However, our 

current approach is outdated and needs to be more responsive to emerging science. 

If we are going to preserve our drinking water resource from emerging threats such 

as ‘‘fracking’’ for natural gas or the accumulation of nano-materials, we must aggressively move forward with improved monitoring, exposure evaluation, and assessment of public health risks. Lack of certainty about contaminants and their potential effects cannot continue to be an excuse for lack of action to protect public 

health. 
178 

I would like to conclude with a brief list of recommendations for the Committee 

to consider: 

• Shift from reaction to contaminants to prevention of contamination of our drinking water 

• Improve protection of surface and groundwater sources 

• Expand regional and State water monitoring efforts to identify contaminants 

and their sources 

• Recognize of the potential cumulative impacts of multiple contaminants with 

common health endpoints in the standards setting process 

• Advance drinking water treatment technologies to better remove chemical contaminants and their precursors 

Controlling pathogens in drinking water has been a cornerstone of our public 

health efforts to prevent infectious disease. Now we must also recognize that monitoring and reducing chemical contamination of our drinking water is an essential 

component of our public health effort to prevent chronic disease 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today on this important public 

health challenge. 

References 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Toxicological Review of 

Hexavalent Chromium (CAS No. 18540–29–9) (External Review Draft). EPA/635/R– 

10/004A. September 2010. Available at: oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm. 

getfile?pldownloadlid=498712. 

EWG (Environmental Working Group) 2010. Cancer causing Chromium 6 in U.S. 

tap water. http://static.ewg.org/reports/2010/chrome6/html/references.html 

NTP. (2008) NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 

sodium dichromate dihydrate (CAS No. 7789–12–0) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 

mice (drinking water studies). Washington, DC: National Toxicology Program; NTP 

TR 546. Available online at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/546lweblFINAL.pdf 

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2009. Draft Public 

Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water: Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 

California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: www.oehha.ca.gov/ 

water/phg/pdf/Cr6PHGdraft082009.pdf. 
179 

! "#$%&%(1 $) *+%a,+, $} (a, ( 

- . / (0 #l. 2(+) 3(4 +#251-) 3( 

Wet Basement Leaching! Baltimore Chromium Cleanup 
180 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I would like to address our two water people. I first got started 

in Marin County as a county supervisor, so I was pretty close to 

the water district people and the whole issue of drinking water. 

You are both saying, very clearly, Congress, keep out of this, this 

has nothing to do with you, let’s just have the EPA do whatever 

they do and follow the law. 

Well, let’s just set aside for a minute any kind of prejudices on 

who should act. Let’s just make believe we are just a person in the 

United States of America who is raising a family who wants to 

make sure when they drink the water, it is safe. They don’t really 

care, if you, Mr. Murray, take action on your own, because I know 

you care a lot about this, and you might just say, we are not happy 

with our quality, we are going to move forward without the Federal 

Government. They don’t care if the State government does it, they 

don’t care if the Federal Government—they don’t care if the Environmental Working Group brings to light all this, they want the 

water safe. 

So let me tell you my view, because you are not going to be 

happy with it, but in the interest of fairness here, I believe that 

in the 1996 law, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the rewrite of the 

Water Act, what Congress wanted to happen was for the EPA to 

begin to move on these emerging contaminants. They expected that 

EPA would move on these emerging contaminants. 

They didn’t expect that not one emerging contaminant would be 

regulated from 1996 to as we sit here. Not one thing has happened. 

Nothing. It reminds me of what happened when Senator Feinstein 

threw up her hands when she looked at the exposure of our kids 

to pthalates. She said, I am not waiting around for the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission to act, they are not acting. We are 

going to do it. 

In essence, we did it. At that time, I said if we don’t see the national Government implementing the laws then Congress is going 

to take it upon itself. 

Now, in the 1996 Act, Congress is the one who said, you shall 

regulate arsenic. Because I could tell you, knowing what I see, I 

don’t think arsenic, we could have had the same fight over that. 

Now, I understand from your point of view that you would rather 

let things go as they are. But I want to say this. As the author of 

the bill to regulate, to have EPA set a standard for perchlorate, 

and I don’t say what it should be, I just say it should be based on 

science and also chromium VI based on science, and someone from 

California, where we have set goals and standards for these two 

very dangerous contaminants, and I would put in the record, because I know we all want science. I have it. I have the science here. 

Some people are asking for it on perchlorate. I put in the record 

these scientific studies on what perchlorate does to babies and to 

fetuses in the womb. 

I am saying to you, to my water people out there, please work 

with us. Now, EPA is going to set a standard, we hope, for perchlorate. They are going to do it based on the science. I hope that 

you will work with us. If in fact you support the 1996 law, as you 

said you do, and you are calling for regular order, that is what EPA 

is doing, regular order. They are also engaged in regular order 
181 

when it comes to chromium VI. They said what the Environmental 

Working Group did was a snapshot of 1 day. I think Mr. Cook has 

given great credibility today when he compares what the systems 

are doing with his report, they were pretty much on target there 

in his snapshot. 

So I want to just say to all of you, and I will withhold my questions until the next round, that I hope you will work with us and 

not against us. Because we represent the same people. Whether the 

EPA is moved forward because we say, set a standard, and we 

show why, or they are moving forward because they have seen 

some science that isn’t definitive but is giving them a sense of it, 

I need you to work with us, not against us. We are your friends. 

I don’t like unfunded mandates. Senator Inhofe and I agree. We 

want to make it possible for you to do your work. 

But I told you what the cost of cancer is to our society from the National Cancer Institute. You are looking at upwards of $200 billion a year. So to say that you support the Drinking Water Act and 

regular order is great. But what you don’t say is that there hasn’t 

been one thing done by the EPA except what Congress demanded, 

which is set a standard for arsenic, and now we are going to move 

forward with perchlorate, I hope, and chromium VI. Because if we 

don’t do it, I will tell you what, the States are going to start to do 

it. Pretty soon, the cities are going to say, why aren’t we doing it, 

because it is their people that are going to say, protect us from 

chromium VI. 

I will definitely give you a chance to answer in the next round, 

but I want to give Senator Boozman a chance here. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Again, I think that we all agree that at some level, that this is 

a serious problem. The question is, what level that is. 

Help me, now, with California, their level, their suggested level 

is .02 at this point? OK. But there is no, you have Riverside, much 

higher than that. But there is no inducement for them to go down 

to that, that is just a suggested place to go. 

I guess, and then it looked like that they went from, I think in 

the testimony they went from .06 to .02, based on your stuff. What 

I would like from you, Dr. Burke, and Mr. Cook, I would really like 

the science that you have, give me a list of stuff that I need to look 

at so we can see where we need to go. 

I also think that it really makes a huge difference that if we are 

talking about Riverside being at 1.69 now, what is the cost it is 

going to have to incur to go down to .06? What benefit are we going 

to get out of that? 

Then also, what is the cost of going from .06 down to .02? I don’t 

mean to be rude, but the idea of them going from .06 to .02 based 

on your study, where it is a tap in a city throughout, I don’t think 

that you all would do that, Dr. Burke, in the sense if you truly 

were trying to, now, again, I understand what you were doing and 

things. 

But the problem is that the sweeping generalizations come out 

of a scientific effort that you generally, I don’t think, Dr. Burke, 

would make based on an effort like that. In other words, that is 

pretty shaky. So again, I would like to see good studies, what you 

have there. Somebody at some point, Madam Chair, I really would 
182 

like to know the cost and the bang for the buck, as opposed to, as 

we go to these very ratcheted, why don’t we just say zero? Yet 

there is a reason we don’t say zero, because it is expensive to do 

these. There is a finite amount of money. You have to have some 

practicality in all this. 

Can you comment on that? I think you understand what I am 

trying to say, not in a very good way. 

Mr. BURKE. I absolutely understand, as a former regulator. We 

have to be practical. We have to move forward in public health protection. But we have to face the realities of our current limitations 

with pollution. There is an approach to that. The approach is not 

to cite the cost as a reason not to respond to the science. The approach is to get folks together and say, what can we practically do 

to reduce population exposure and how can we move forward. 

Now, on other pollutants, like benzene, that is in gasoline, it is 

all over the environment, the goal is zero, because that is a wellrecognized leukemogen. The public health goal, and a goal to reduce cancer to one in a million, is a target. But I think we have 

to get there incrementally. That is possible. 

But what we shouldn’t be doing is throwing out the science because of the cost. They are two separate issues. I think as we move 

forward, we have to acknowledge that and have practical steps. Ultimately, it is going to come down to protecting the source water 

and doing what is feasible, as we have with other pollutants. 

So you raise a very important point. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I agree, you don’t throw out the science because of the cost. But you do have good science to go where you 

are going, as opposed to emotion and not using common sense. 

Mr. BURKE. Absolutely. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Sometimes we see that. That is a real concern. 

Mr. BURKE. Absolutely. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes? 

Mr. COOK. Senator, thank you, I think you have put your finger 

on it. But I think most Americans don’t understand that under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA routinely concludes what a safe 

level would be, and they come to that conclusion and publish it. 

Then the regulated level that they enforce is considerably higher, 

weaker. Precisely because they take into consideration the kind of 

concerns that you have mentioned, costs. We have limited resources. I think that is also what Professor Burke was getting at. 

So one of the questions in our study was, is it there? If I may 

say, I think if we hadn’t looked, there isn’t a water utility that is 

complaining about it now that would have looked on their own. 

Second, we said in our report, it is a snapshot, and the first thing 

we really need to consider, apart from the science of toxicity that 

has been discussed so eloquently, is how widespread is this? We 

need to look more widely. I think that process is underway now, 

but it is still voluntary. We may not get many more samples in. 

Or we may. I hope we do. 

Then we can have this discussion. There is no question that we 

are not worried about rats getting cancer. That is not why we are 

studying the animals. We are worried because there is an accumulation of evidence in this case that low level exposure does pose a 
183 

risk of cancer in people. Because of that, that is why our study 

really made the impact that it made. If that science hadn’t ripened 

as far as it has ripened, matured as far as it has matured, our 

study, I think, wouldn’t have had any impact. But the fact is, there 

is science. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I want to tell you a story about Santa Monica, California, a beautiful place, if you haven’t visited it. Senator Boozman, just on your 

way out, I want to tell you this quick story. In Santa Monica, they 

found out they had huge amounts of MTBE in the drinking water. 

The reason they found out is, no one tested, you could smell it. You 

could taste it. It was a very unsafe level. 

So here is what happened. No one, for a period of time, could 

drink the water. Senator Feinstein and I and members of the 

House, both Republican and Democrat from California, were able 

to get some funding. We helped them clean it up and now they can 

drink the water in Santa Monica. 

I can tell you that the worst thing we can do for our economy 

and for everything else is to ignore these issues. I know you don’t 

want to, and I know what you are pressing toward is the science, 

the feasibility. So on your way out the door, I am going to tell you, 

I am going to send you a scientific report on chromium VI that was 

done in California by one of our universities, which was the key 

scientific factor in them setting that low standard. It is absolutely 

true, sometimes you don’t go down to zero, because you don’t have 

to go down to zero. Sometimes you have to go down that low. 

So it is about protecting the health. But I think it is important 

to note that the EPA has to do a cost benefit analysis, they have 

to, in addition to the science. They also have to make a finding that 

what they are proposing, the standard they are proposing is technologically and economically feasible. 

So I just wanted you to feel better about that. I have been 

steeped in these things for a long time. I think that the arguments 

you raised are absolutely appropriate. But I honestly think we have 

answers to them. 

So I look forward to working with you and sending you those 

studies. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. 

Again, though, you have a situation where on the chart several 

California cities that are quite high compared to .02, and yet, the 

reality is that the State, the Federal Government, has not allocated 

those resources. It is, the question is, is .02 where we want to be 

at? Is it .04, .06, whatever? At this point, that is, I don’t think we 

really know that. 

Senator BOXER. Right. In California, we have set .02 as a goal. 

They reduced it from .06 to .02, because the UC people found, when 

they looked at the science and they looked at the babies and they 

looked at the pregnant women, that that was the level you could 

assure that they would be protected. But it is a goal. 

Because of your point that you are making, it has to be technologically, economically feasible. It has to have a cost benefit analysis. 
184 

So I honestly think we have the tools at our disposal to do this 

right. But I also find, and I thank you for your contribution, but 

I also find it disturbing that not one emerging contaminant has 

been regulated since 1996. It makes no sense, as the cancer rates 

skyrocket in this country. Something is wrong there. 

All I am asking for is honesty here, from everybody. If people tell 

me, we can’t afford it, that is my job, to help you get help fixing 

it. I don’t like unfunded mandates, and I never have. I want to 

fund these issues. Because I don’t want my people exposed to chromium VI. If the water district is saying, it is too costly, I need to 

help you. But we shouldn’t mix up, as I think Dr. Burke points out, 

the truth of what it is going to mean to protect our people with the 

cost. We have to see those two things and we have to work to make 

sure that we can help these districts protect their people. We don’t 

want children being born whose brains are not developed as they 

should. We don’t want children being born with all kind of birth 

defects. We found out, for example, with lead, the great news is, 

when you protect them from exposure, they are fine. Even the ones 

who had some exposure before. 

So I think this Committee has a proud history of working across 

party lines to protect the public. But I would ask, since I have 

made a number of comments and I didn’t give people a chance to 

respond, I will go down and have you each make a closing statement. Go ahead, Mr. Cook, and we will go next to Ms. VanDe Hei. 

Mr. COOK. Chairman Boxer, I commend you for the hearing. We 

support your legislation. We supported it for a long time. We have 

been worried about chromium VI, you have been worried about it 

for well over a decade officially. So this is not a new subject. 

But I think that we stand ready to work with the Committee, not 

just on the health and assessment side, but also on the funding 

side. We have worked very cordially with our colleagues at the 

water associations for many years, supported their requests for additional money, lobbied side by side with them in some cases on 

contaminant issues. So I think that you are right, this is not a partisan issue, it is not a regional issue, this is an American issue. We 

want to have clean water, and we have some barriers in the way 

that we have to deal with. 

So thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you for all your work. 

If I could just say, keep on doing what you are doing. If people 

don’t like it, that is their right. I like it. Because I want a snapshot. I don’t take it as the last word. I just take it as a warning, 

as a red flag, as a moment to say, wait a minute, this is a snapshot 

today and this is a little surprising. I think the group should welcome it, and I think there are some that do. But I certainly welcome it, as Chairman of this Committee, and I encourage you to 

keep on doing our job. Because at a time of budget deficits, I think 

Mr. Murray was honest about that, these are tough times, very 

tough times for everybody. 

But the world goes on and our kids are being born, and we are 

relying on them for our future. We can’t stop the science or telling 

the truth to the American people. These are hard times. We have 

to look at what we are facing and we have to decide what is most 
185 

important. What you are doing is saying, time out, let’s take a look 

at this. We don’t want to look at it, but let’s do it. 

So I am with you all the way in your work. I hope you continue 

it. 

Ms. VanDe Hei. 

Ms. VANDE HEI. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. 

I guess just a couple of things. I would like to say, in our testimony we did not intend to say that Congress had no role in the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. In fact, Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act and has a very important role in oversight, to make 

sure that that Act is implemented the way you intended it. So I 

would like to make that clear. 

We also wonder why there have been no new contaminants regulated, and we believe the process is there to do that. So I would 

ask that perhaps someone look at EPA’s structure, and where the 

people at Triangle Park, what they are studying versus what the 

program office needs in terms of data to sort of support a regulation. About 18 years ago, those offices were separated. We got program offices, science was taken away from it. I think that is part 

of the reason why you don’t see new regulations coming down the 

road. 

I would also like to followup with something that Ken mentioned, 

and that is, there is confusion about what an MCLG is and what 

an MCL is. We would support one number. We have tried for years 

to get Congress to look at that issue, because it is hard to explain 

to somebody why you can have an MCLG of zero and a standard 

that is different than that. So we would love to work with you on 

that part. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. Murray. 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I think we are all seeking for meaningful opportunities for risk 

reduction. We can argue that the Clean Water Act gave us a framework to get to those meaningful opportunities for risk reduction, 

and we can argue that maybe that process isn’t working as well as 

it should be working. 

But we can’t replace that process with water utilities chasing the 

contamiannt du jour. Right now, Fairfax Water is monitoring for 

30 plus compounds, new compounds over the last year, year and 

a half, that have been raised as contaminants of concern. We don’t 

know what to say about it. We post the data on our website, and 

we don’t have decent health effects information to speak intelligently to our customers about it. 

We remove a lot of them. But to what levels is it safe? So I think 

your concerns with how we can improve the process of getting to 

meaningful risk reduction is real. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Dr. Burke. 

Mr. BURKE. I think the most important thing that the Committee 

can do is break the logjam. You are absolutely right about no movement forward since the mid-1990’s. Even that movement has been 

quite little. We are actually stuck back in the late 1970’s, I think, 

in Safe Drinking Water. I think it comes down to this: prevention 

is not a bad word. In public health, it is what we do. Lack of abso-
186 

lute certainty and arguments about cost, and there shouldn’t be an 

excuse for lack of action. 

So I would hope that as we move forward, you can use the 

science, apply it better, take a hard look at the way EPA does 

things, and streamline it so that we can better protect public 

health. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, all of you. 

We will have our test case with perchlorate and chromium VI, 

because EPA is moving ahead. I hope our friends at the water 

agencies will work with us. You are going to have a chance to publicly comment. I will be looking forward to what you say on this 

issue of perchlorate. It is all across the country, it is all over the 

place. We already know the problem it causes with thyroid. 

So I hope you will work with us. Look, I think that straightforward, honest declarations here are in order. If we find that perchlorate is a danger, and we have proved it to the water districts 

and we have proved it to everyone, I think the water districts 

should support it and say, we will be honest, we are going to need 

help in doing it. Let’s get to that point, rather than try to use every 

delaying tactic, so that we just continue on with increasing cancer 

rates, with, I have a bill that will get EPA more involved in coordinating cancer cluster action. 

When we hear people in different States that say, we don’t know 

what is happening, we don’t know why there is this hot spot of leukemia over here, and why there is a hot spot of other problems 

over here. Right now, there isn’t a way to respond except with the 

local people doing something, the EPA maybe being called and 

what we are trying to do is get all this information under one roof 

and try to answer these questions. A lot of the questions could lead 

back to water. 

We have a cancer hot spot, it was brain tumor, it was a hot spot 

of brain cancer in children in Idaho. Senator Crapo and I, across 

party lines, have gotten together to move forward with this cancer 

cluster bill. It may lead to the water. Because as it turns out, we 

found out the one thing we know, there was mining, and a lot of 

those toxins went into a lake, and the kids swam in that lake. I 

don’t know if it was in the drinking water, we don’t know all that. 

But the point is, it is our responsibility to protect the health and 

safety of our people, all of us. This is our job. Whether you are a 

non-profit, a profit, we need to all be mindful of that. We can’t 

harm the people. 

My role as Chairman here is just to point out that we are not 

moving quickly enough on some of these contaminants that have 

been around a long time. There is a lot of information. States like 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, are moving forward. It is 

really our job. Why should a person in California be safer from 

chromium VI than he is in any other State? It is not right. It is 

just one country under God. We have to protect all of our people. 

So I am going to look forward to working with all of you, because 

you are all a piece of this puzzle. I think in the spirit of cooperation 

that I hope we will continue to have that we will be able to get behind some of these obvious problems and solve them. Because that 

is our job. 
187 

I want to thank each and every one of you for being here and 

for your very honest, straightforward testimony. We stand adjourned, and thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF STEVE LEWIS, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF NORMAN, OK 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Steve Lewis, City Manager of Norman Oklahoma and responsible to our citizens for the safety of their drinking water. The city of Norman first 

learned of the Environmental Working Group (EWG)’s reported levels of Chromium 

6 in our water supply through the news media. Norman, Oklahoma was identified 

as having one of the highest levels of Chromium 6 of the 35 cities tested. In spite 

of our requests, the EWG has refused to share the sampling data details with us, 

so confirmation of their report has not been possible. What we do know is that a 

single water sample was used to undermine public confidence in the safety of our 

water supply. 

Total chromium is regulated by the EPA as a primary drinking water contaminant with a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 100 parts per billion (ppb). This 

level of protection was set by the EPA in 1992 based on the best available science. 

Two subsequent EPA reviews concluded that the total chromium MCL is still protective of public health and as precautionary as the current science dictates. We applaud EPA’s continued diligence to regulatory rulemaking based on good science and 

look forward to the result of the current Chromium 6 scientific review to be finalized 

later this year. 

In Norman, total chromium is tested in accordance with requirements of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Approximately 30 percent of our water supply 

is groundwater, where chromium occurs naturally. Chromium testing results are reported annually to our customers in our Consumer Confidence Report (CCR); the 

latest CCR reported total chromium values for our groundwater wells between 11 

and 86 ppb, all of which are below the regulatory limit of 100 ppb. Seven new water 

wells have been tested for total chromium since issuance of the CCR and their levels 

range from ‘‘non-detect’’ to 80 ppb. The surface Water Treatment Plant, that treats 

Lake Thunderbird water, has total chromium levels of ‘‘non-detect’’. All of our potable water, whether groundwater or surface water, is 100 percent in compliance with 

all current EPA regulations. 

Based on EPA’s suggested recommendations, the city of Norman has begun comprehensive testing specifically for Chromium 6 at each of our wells as well as within 

the distribution system. With this additional information, Norman will be in a better position to address our customers concerns and to respond if a change in the 

chromium regulation is promulgated. 

The residents of Norman may rest assured that the city of Norman is committed 

to providing water that is safe to drink for all members of our community. As previously noted, the EPA is currently evaluating new health effects data on Chromium 

6 and that evaluation is expected to be complete in late 2011. Norman is prepared 

to vigorously respond in a way that protects public health and meets Federal and 

State of Oklahoma standards. 

Consistent with our commitment to provide safe drinking water, the Mayor and 

I have appointed a Chromium 6 Working Group that will be constituted of senior 

city management and three members of the City Council. There will also be representatives on a technical advisory committee who bring expertise in chemistry and 

geology, public health, and water system engineering to work with this group as we 

continue to monitor the chromium public health issues. 

But more is needed from our regulators, and this is my main point to you today. 

We are in a new age of communication and information. The EWG report was designed to alarm the American people as to the safety of their drinking water and 

caused them to question the ability of utilities like Norman to protect the public 

health of our customers; when, in fact, the public water supply system in Norman 

Oklahoma provides the safest and most economical drinking water option that good 

science and good public health policy would dictate. 

We need more from our regulators than just reports on the technical details of 

rules and rulemaking. We need our regulatory bodies, especially EPA, to engage the 

American public in an open and honest discourse about the safety of their drinking 

water with the same media approach that our detractors use. EPA’s December 2010, 

response to the EWG study was helpful, but did not provide any specific guidance 
188 

regarding how to respond to concerned customers. We need to be proactive, not reactive. 

The safety of the American Public’s drinking water is one of the most impressive 

success stories of the last 100 years. Protecting public health means more than acting on the good science that EPA develops and fosters. It means providing the confidence to our citizens and customers that their drinking water is the safest source 

of water available to them. To accomplish the complete mission of protection of the 

public health, our industry must be able to communicate our message more effectively than those who would have our customers think otherwise. America’s drinking water is safe, reliable and economical. And we can all be proud of that fact. 

Norman will continue to work closely with the ODEQ and the EPA to assure our 

drinking water is safe for human consumption. Norman continues to support research by the EPA, the Water Research Foundation (WRF), and other government 

and scientific organizations. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and demonstrate 

Norman’s actions, and I am pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

RESPONSE BY STEVEN LEWIS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question. Describe the importance that utilities place on ensuring that they provide safe drinking water that protects public health, including the health of pregnant women, infants, and children, from dangerous contaminants. 

Response. The City’s foremost priority is to provide safe drinking water to the 

community. A safe and reliable water supply is the ‘‘life blood’’ to any community 

and the utility employees and City leaders take that responsibility very seriously. 

All utility employees must be licensed to be able to work at the water treatment 

plant. Last year alone, we performed over 170,000 water quality tests (some every 

15 minutes) to insure the water meets all State and Federal quality regulations. 

RESPONSES BY STEVEN LEWIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. Mr. Lewis, I want you to know that I understand the commitment 

of the city of Norman to providing water that is safe to drink and protective of public health for all members of your community. I remember in 2006, Norman addressed a similar challenge regarding a federally mandated reduction of the MCL 

for arsenic from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. I know we helped the city of Norman secure $1.5 

million in Federal Grant moneys between 2005 and 2006 to help the city perform 

major modifications to its groundwater supply and remain in compliance with the 

new arsenic rule. How much is Norman spending to deal with this new Chromium 

6 report? 

Response. We appreciate your help and concern in meeting the previous mandated 

reduction of arsenic in the drinking water. Overall the city of Norman spent over 

$11 million to deal with the change in arsenic regulations, which caused a significant rate increase to our customers. 

We are currently performing additional testing and reviewing alternatives to deal 

with a potential change in the chromium regulation. We are also investing a considerable amount of time to educate our customers about the issue and have formed 

a senior management committee and a technical working group to help us determine the status of this issue within the scientific community. 

With regards to potential costs for treatment of chromium 6, we cannot make an 

exact determination without guidance from the Federal Government regarding appropriate treatment technologies and, if applicable, what the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) may be for chromium six, or total chromium. Since the scientific 

review necessary to determine these levels is incomplete, this point it is like hitting 

a moving target. However, our current engineering estimates run anywhere from 

about $44 million to over $100 million, depending on the mandated removal levels. 

Question 2. Have you received any more communication from EWG regarding 

where and when the sample they tested was obtained? How would that information 

help you understand the implication of this report? 

Response. We have received information from EWG as to when the sample was 

taken, but not as to where the sample was taken. The point was not whether or 

not the sample resulted in a chromium reading. We acknowledge there is naturally 

occurring chromium in the Garber-Welling aquifer. The issue is to whether the test 

could be duplicated, whether there was adequate laboratory QA/QC, and alarming 

our customers about a substance where we already meet Federal regulations. 

Question 3. Please explain the difficulty that the city has in communicating with 

citizens about the EWG report and what it means for them. 
189 

Response. As mentioned, the EWG report was unnecessarily alarming to our customers about a substance that we currently monitor and for which we have always 

been below the federally mandated regulatory limits. The EWG report also stated 

that chromium is a ‘contaminant’ and ‘pollutant’ which was misleading since the 

chromium in our supply results from naturally and commonly occurring deposits in 

the earth’s crust. Because of the alarming nature of the report, customers believed 

there was an acute (i.e. immediate) danger to their health from drinking the water, 

not realizing that the possibility of any ill effects would be from continuous consumption and only at levels above the regulatory MCL, and would take many years 

to develop (if at all). The report caused many, many customers to distrust the water 

utility and the City, when we work hard to protect the public health and to meet 

all State and Federal regulations. 

Question 4. What is the expected background concentration of chromium in your 

source water? Is your source water from groundwater or surface water or a combination? What causes the background concentrations of chromium (trivalent and 

hexavalent) in your source water to vary? 

Response. Water for the city of Norman comes from two sources: groundwater and 

surface water. Lake Thunderbird is a reservoir that Norman shares with Del City 

and Midwest City. On an annual basis, about 70 percent of Norman’s water comes 

from this Lake. Water tested from LakeThunderbird had a result of 9ppb for total 

chromium. The other source of water for Norman is from the Garber-Wellington aquifer. This is a large aquifer that serves many communities East of Oklahoma City. 

We currently have 26 operating wells in this aquifer. Water from the aquifer tested 

anywhere from 10ppb to 90ppb. The chromium in the Garber-Wellington aquifer is 

naturally occurring. 

Question 5. How can chromium be removed form public drinking water systems? 

Response. We are reviewing engineering option and opinions as to how to remove 

chromium from water. Some of the options include, a lime softening plant, ion exchange and membrane filters. Any of these options will be a huge expense to our 

customers and significantly increase their water rates. 

Question 6. I am always concerned about how cities and local governments are 

dealing with the unfunded mandates that are passed down from the Federal Government. I know stricter drinking water standards and clean water standards force 

many of our communities to either raise rates or seek additional funding from other 

sources. How can we ensure that utilities like yours are not facing the constant 

threat of having to raise rates and still meeting drinking water standards? 

Response. The city of Norman operates the Water and Wastewater utilities as ‘enterprise funds’, meaning the customers that use the service, pay for the service. So, 

all the utility revenues must come from the customers. As mentioned in a previous 

question, we had to significantly increase water rates to meet the change in the arsenic rule in 2006. Now, depending on what level the new chromium MCL is determined to be, we will have to increase the water rate to our customers. 

As previously stated, we see it as our duty to protect the public health at all times 

and work hand in hand with Federal and State regulatory agencies to address new 

concerns that may appear on the horizon. As persons that could potentially impact 

how the Federal Government responds to the Chromium 6 issue, we only ask that 

you ensure that if a new regulation is promulgated that the current scientific process utilized to determine human health impacts from a particular component is 

maintained and ‘‘sound’’ scientific reasons are provided for this mandate to our utility. In addition, we ask that these mandates, whatever they may be, have funding 

mechanisms in place that provide some measure of relief for utilities, such as ourselves, to protect the public health to the best of our abilities. 

Question 7. Utilities have raised concerns with my office about EPA’s decisions regarding the technical assistance to monitor for chromium 6, including the lack of 

a fully validated analytical method, inability for the agency to collect and use the 

data generated and lack of explanation of how to communicate the health effects 

to the public. How can EPA clarify and assist Norman with the technical assistance 

it provided? 

Response. As you are aware, when we first learned about a proposed chromium 

MCL in the parts per trillion we were shocked to learn there was not a laboratory 

in the region that could provide testing results at that detection limit. In addition, 

the chance for a laboratory error (either in sample collection, storing or testing) 

when testing for substances in the ppt range is very probable. 

Question 8. Are you supportive of a drinking water regulatory process that relies 

on science to help guide decisionmaking? Do you think the current SDWA provides 
190 

a clear, transparent, science driven process for making decisions regarding drinking 

water regulations? 

Response. The city of Norman supports the EPA in their regulatory process that 

uses science to determine their decisionmaking. We would be disappointed if regulations were determined based on inconclusive data, bullying by special interest 

groups, fear or a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to assumptions. 

Question 9. Is there anything else you would like to add for the record? 

Response. Not at this time. 

RESPONSE BY STEVEN LEWIS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question. If not for EWG’s monitoring of your water systems, the public would 

probably not be aware of the presence of chromium six in their drinking water. 

Could stronger Federal monitoring requirements help you catch these problems earlier and allow you to address them? 

Response. Our community, our customers, and we as a utility were already aware 

of the level of chromium in the water supply. Each year we publish and mail to each 

customer the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). This report lists compliance information with respect to Federal requirements for our drinking water supply. As an 

added service to our customers, we also provide this information on the City’s 

website that is available any time. The EWG report created an unnecessary alarm 

in the community about a substance that is already regulated and that we currently 

meet the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). In our opinion, stronger 

Federal requirements for monitoring would not have any impact on this matter as 

all of the required information was available to our utility and our customers 

through the normal Federal monitoring requirements. 

The EWG report put ‘the cart before the horse’ so to speak, by making alarming 

inferences about a substance before there is agreement within the scientific and regulatory community regarding their assertions. As stated, we (water utilities all over 

the nation) work hard and are diligent in providing safe, potable water to all our 

customers. We strive and promise to meet all State and Federal regulations. 

RESPONSE BY STEVEN LEWIS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR CARPER

Question. How can the Federal Government focus its efforts to improve drinking 

water quality on pollution prevention? What kind of tools and programs exist to prevent the pollution of drinking water and what new ones are needed? 

Response. Analytical technologies and techniques continue to improve and, as a 

result, we are able to find more substances in the water than ever before. Detecting 

substances in the parts per billion (ppb) and parts per trillion (ppt) ranges reliably 

and consistently outpace the State agencies’ and local laboratories’ ability to duplicate these tests. In addition, the Federal Government and EPA must insure that 

in addition to simply detecting additional substances in water, sufficient scientific 

basis exists to determine if the substance poses a problem to the population. This 

is critical because of the high cost to the community to remove these substances. 

New federally mandated drinking water regulations without Federal financial assistance will directly impact how much our customers pay for their water. 

Æ